Pilling moved the amendment to Item 9.11 – to introduce a Notice of Motion to the Local Law. Seconded by Magee
PILLING: Stated that he had emailed all councillors regarding his intention to move the amendment. Said that most councils already have Notice of Motion in fact 76 out of the current 79. ‘The premise (of Newton’s report) is that we councillors aren’t capable of sensibly utilising this option’….’it’s a negative type of argument’…… Pilling stated that he felt that Glen Eira councillors should have the same options as the vast majority of councillors in other municipalities. A notice of motion would also give councillors the opportunity to raise issues that ‘aren’t a majority view’….’in my mind this is a healthy feature of local government’….. ‘and goes some way to alleviate majority blocks’. Gives non majority councillors a voice and that ‘is to be encouraged’.
The report talked about ‘technical hurdles’ but countered this by saying that neighbouring councils such as Bayside and Kingston have ‘clear guidelines’ ….’Urgent business has to be deemed just that’ ….’let’s codify this….set guidelines’….’As community elected representatives I feel we are resposible enough to raise any issues that are constructive and timely’. A Notice of Motion would encourage this. ‘It’s 10 years since we’ve had a Notice of Motion in glen eira. It’s now time to reintroduce it’.
MAGEE: Spoke about how there ‘is an opportunity there to misuse it (ie Notice of Motion) ‘but I believe the overwhelming majority within this chamber certainly wouldn’t do that….talking with groups, talking with individuals, there is times when business becomes a bit more than urgent…..I don’t think there’s a great opportunity for someone to come in and just blatantly raise issues to the detriment of the council…..(notice of motion) is …..an opportunity for us all to maybe move things along a little bit quicker…..it certainly doesn’t stop us from asking for information….or clarification in the days leading up to a council meeting…..it certainly doesn’t mean that we have to wait weeks and weeks…..sometimes months…..I feel that I would benefit from the Notice of Motion…..
TANG: Said he had spoken a few times with Pilling about this and the points he made were about the information that councillors received before making decisions. Went on to discuss the current agenda item stating ‘it wasn’t struck from thin air…..it came about (as a result of the last council meeting and Penhalluriack’s request for a report) …’and now we’ve got a report and councillors will take different positions…..it’s completely fair that councillors go against the advice from time to time….I don’t think (Pilling’s motion) is going to take council forward and only has the potential to take council back….(if a councillor wants a motion raised) I don’t see how a Notice of Motion will take them any further than a Request for a Report because if they don’t have the support of the majority of councillors…..if you can’t get a request for a report up you’re not going to be able to get a Notice of Motion up’. Tang then argued that if a motion was really urgent then it would fall into that category. ‘There is the potential that council could have a really persuasive argument which could be completely founded in falsities…..and that could sway council to make a decision without any contrasting or corresponding information to support that position……that’s the risk I see with council making decisions on the run. ……I’m particularly concerned that Notices of Motion would give rise to the opportunity to make decisions without at least having advice…..better that councillors make decisions with some advice rather than none at all’.
LIPSHUTZ: Agreed with Tang. ‘That there are a majority of councillors in the state that have this Notice of Motion…..doesn’t mean that it is right, doesn’t mean that it is right for us…my view is ‘if it’s not broken don’t fix it’. Stated that ‘in reality’ councillors have 3 ways of raising matters – request for a report; urgent business and ‘we can simply ask the CEO to put something on the agenda’. ‘Generally what happens is that at our briefing meeting…..we can mull over decisions…..if a majority of people want something put on the agenda it happens that way’. ‘Every Tuesday we meet and we discuss a whole variety of things…..(councillors come up with) hairbrained ideas…..we can discuss this. We discuss it openly….and we have a very robust exchange of views….the majority comes to a decision one way or the other…..and that’s how I think it should be because (council has to decide)…I’m concerned about the mischief (of notice of motion) …we make decisions in an ill informed way….we discover afterwards that this is entirely the wrong way…..if a councillor wants to know something we ask for a report….we can put a timeline on that….Other concern is that councillors can grandstand and can frustrate the working of a council….(agreed with Magee that no-one at) this council would do that….we act responsibly, but this is a local law that will not just be for this council but for generations….we can make the law and you look at it in a broad based way not in a specific way….(if a councillor grandstands, there are speeches, fillibuster) and frustrate the workings of council and that’s not what you want to see….I don’t think this adds anything….In my view it’s important that we maintain a collegiate atmosphere….ensure ….(since being on council since 2005) can’t remember one instance (where he couldn’t get something onto the agenda)……if it’s not broken don’t fix it….the dangers of putting a notice of motion as against not having it are….far too great.
FORGE: Stated that initially she was supportuive of Cr. Magee (?) but having ‘listened to various comments ….I’m going to abstain from this because I feel that I need to know more’. Asked if she needs to go to the Local Law advisory committee …”to receive that information’. Esakoff then interrupted and told Forge that she is unable to abstain and that she would have to vote or perhaps ‘go off to the bathroom or something’ (laughter) . Forge left chambers.
HYAMS:’ I’m sick of (hearing) that councillors should be able to get things on the agenda….if there was no other way….but as has been said there are many other ways….. and other ways that I think are more responsible and will lead to us making more informed decisions….if a councillor makes a request for a report…I’ll know what they’re trying to get at….the advantage of doing it that way is that it comes back to us with a pack of information….can ignore (the information or back it)….someone said it may take ages (to get back a report) because officers need that long to make up the information …..so (if a matter is that complicated) that it’s going to take officers 8 weeks ….that we as a council should vote on it without that information at all…..surely that’s not responsible. Hyams then gave the example of Marrickville council deciding to boycott Israeli products only to discover that this would have cost them millions given that they would have to change their entire computer systems). …..if they would have made a request for a report first…and they wouldn’t have done it, but because (they voted) without background information’ they got themselves into this mess. …I don’t think anyone in this council would abuse this….but myself and the mayer have served on this council where people would have done this without hesitation….as Lipshutz said when we do these things we don’t just do it for this council …..we do it for future councils…. we can’t say (what sort of people are going to be on those future councils)…..and as long as there are adequate ways (to get things on the agenda)…..I don’t see the need to take the risk by changing anything….
TANG: raised the issue of Forge’s ‘desire to abstain from the vote’ and walk out …..I don’t think you can abstain and then walk out…(not a personal attack on Forge but conerned with) the advice that a councillor who is out of the room doesn’t have to vote….
ESAKOFF: thanks Tang and then spoke to the motion. Doesn’t support the motion for many of ‘the reasons that have already been outlined….I don’t believe that this council would misuse….but I would not like it to be brought back in to our local law for the reasons that Hyams raised…..you don’t know what, who will be in the future….I would not like to leave it at risk that way….I don’t believe that decision making should be made without proper information….never fun to do it on the run (decision making). Reiterated that there is request for reports, urgent business and in assemblies “we’re able to raise something in our general business’ ….if I thought this was going to be an improvement I’d be happy to approve it but ….our decision making is democratic….healthy debate is healthy…the difference between us is what makes a good council….the community too have a part in this….if there is a report in the agenda that they’re able to read….they can contact us, and they do….Notice of motion doesn’t offer that opportunity for there’s no report there for them to offer feedback to us….Informed decisions are always the best decisions…..I don’t think we’re lacking anything….we have opportunities available to us to get things on the agenda….
PILLING: ‘I think the whole language is overstated….(all over the country 100s of) notices of motions are put up….it’s normal business for most councils to have notice of motion….(about making decisions on the run) ‘set guidelines’ ….I think the public likes to see us debate issues….there’s a lot of reasons why I think we should have a notice of motion….I don’t think it’s the real dilemma that’s been painted….it’s just another way of raising issues as other councils do. The world hasn’t fallen in in Stonnington….I think it’s healthy to have debate….I hope we aren’t so cautious and we’re bold and go forward….
MOTION LOST
Hyams then moved that the motion as printed be put. Lipshutz seconded.
LIPSHUTZ: responded to Pilling’s comments with ‘we do have debate’.
TANG: thought that Pilling ‘tackled the points that had been raised well’. Commented that if councillors look at other reports and the ways other councils do things, then he would welcome then bringing this information to council and ‘we’d have a look at it’ Examples he gave were: public toilets in restaurants, ‘pavilions that other councils build on’ ‘no smoking in public playgrounds…there’s all sorts of decisions that I’ve seen other councils make…and all the ones I’ve been interested in are all the ones where there have been reports’. couldn’t think of any one that had come from a Notice of Motion.
MOTION CARRIED ON ESAKOFF’S CASTING VOTE.
Glen Eira Debates 
June 7, 2011 at 10:12 PM
How dare these bastards usurp the democratic right of future councillors and the public to decide the kind of governance they want ten years down the track. The arrogance of Lipshutz and Hyams is beyond redemption. They have absolutely no connection or understanding of their roles and responsibility. It is not to Newton and their little power clique, but to residents. I’m appalled at the level of debate that goes on in this council and throw in Tang as well with his condescending comments to Pilling. Who does this little upstart think he is?
I will be sending this out to as many of my Glen Eira friends as possible. It should be read by every single resident of Glen Eira. They can then curse themselves for voting for these betrayers of the public interest and ensure that it never happens again.
June 8, 2011 at 10:08 AM
Good to see a bit of passion coming through. From my reading there was a debate. Cr Pilling made a good argument and would have had a right of reply. Being a politician he understands that he didn’t win this one, so move on. He will work within the laws and I am sure will find a way of getting items on the agenda. He understands that that most residents don’t take much notice of what goes on at council meetings. What about Cr. Forge not voting. When you are talking to all your friends don’t forget to include her stunt of not voting because she couldn’t make up her mind. Who is she representing? How about thanking the hard working person that must sit in the council meeting and provide such and accurate representation of items. They deserve an award..
June 8, 2011 at 3:46 PM
I’m not sure if you’re being sarcastic, but I would like to thank the owners of the blog for giving us a decent coverage of what goes on at these meetings. i can at least make up my own mind about each councillor and how they are performing. It’s good to at least get something more than simply a motion is carried or not carried and then we don’t even know who voted for what without someone calling for a division. Here I can at least get a feel for what the item and the debate might have been about and I can also learn some of what was said. I don’t understand why we can’t have meetings available online so that everyone could hear every word that’s said. To me that’s transparency and what we should be aiming for.
June 8, 2011 at 4:31 PM
I am not being sarcastic. And on line meetings will come. Keep punching.
June 7, 2011 at 10:25 PM
Golly gosh – he just can’t help himself poor ol Michael. Really has foot in the mouth syndrome every time he opens his gob. At least he admits that “decisions” are made in briefing meetings. Hell’s bells – I thought that was illegal? For a supposedly smart lawyer – what a dummy!
June 7, 2011 at 10:50 PM
Parliament is often criticised for the level of debate that occurs. Reading this however, I conclude that parliament is streaks ahead in quality. It’s hard to imagine any more facile arguments that have been put forward by “the gang”, nor as some have already said, the arrogance inherent in these arguments. What’s even worse is that all is grounded in assumptions, in a belief in the infallibility of officers and their honesty. Of course, no one would be game to admit the possibility that perhaps officers do get it wrong because this is the perfect council and the most perfect administration.
I also seem to remember Lipshutz attacking other councillors for their “scaremongering”. Yet the language here of “risk”, “danger” is as guilty of scaremongering as anything that might have been said previously. Pilling has attempted to address this point, but it’s not enough.
Despite all the protestations that we hear about “collegiate” spirit and everyone working together, it is as plain as day that there is a group of councillors who continually vote as a block. This is not the ideal situation for any democratic institution. If I’m right and there is this power block, then light needs to be cast as to why this exists and what do they have to gain from such possible collusion.
June 7, 2011 at 11:27 PM
Well this is a very sad day for Glen Eira. This makes a mockery of any pretence to openness and transparency in public meetings. There is no such thing as public debate in Glen Eira. Lipshutz has confirmed that what happens in council meetings is nothing but a charade.
In doing so he has contradicted his own peculiar principle enshrined in the Local Laws that decisions are made in council and what happens in other meetings cannot be reported. He has acknowledged that decisions are in fact not made in council meetings – they are made in confidential assemblies of councillors hidden from public scrutiny.
Forge is a dill. But Esakoff’s advice to absent herself from a vote is in breach of regulations in spirit if not in law.
What a disgraceful performance.
June 8, 2011 at 11:39 AM
Forge is a dill, but at least an honest one. I can’t ever imagine Lipshutz or Tang or Hyams admitting that they don’t know enough. It also reveals how little information is exchanged between these advisory committee meetings and the rest of the councillors. With Lipshutz in control of the most important committees and minutes so bereft of detail and discussion points, you would have to bet that that’s all that other councillors get. The select little group makes decisions and then, if they feel like it, convey this to others. This is one reason why Lipshutz should not sit on all of these committees concurrently and why they must become open to the public. If councillors don’t know what the hell is going on and why certain things happen as they do then the fault lies with administrators and the gang. The patterns are clear and the purpose is also clear. Secrecy at all costs.
June 8, 2011 at 8:42 AM
Cr Lipshutz, you are correct if it isn’t broken don’t fix it, but unfortunately it is broken beyond repair so it should be fixed somehow. And the last time I checked the gang of four were no maintenance men.
So you do make decisions at briefing meetings, interesting………….
June 8, 2011 at 10:14 AM
No law against making up your mind when ever you want. The decision was made at the meeting. That’s how it works. No law broken here.
June 8, 2011 at 10:34 AM
Must disagree with you. Under the “no surprises” policy any attempt to raise matters at council meetings have to be declared. This happens at the assemblies where, as Lipshutz has told us, there is discussion and then “decisions” as to whether the motion, request for a report, or anything else will get up. If the vote goes against the councillor and he doesn’t have the numbers, then in 9 out of 10 times the matter is never raised in council. It is cut off before it ever gets out into public. This tells us that every single law is being broken every single time there is a councillor briefing meeting. A notice of motion would threaten this nice little arrangement because it means that all it would take is 2 councillors and it’s out there for discussion, upsetting the entire apple cart of secrecy.
June 8, 2011 at 12:23 PM
No worries Anon, you are obviously in the inner circle of trust and if you believe the decision was made at the meeting and that makes its legal, good on ya well done keep doing what you are doing. I’m sure and like many other residents we believe that you hold secret votes in the briefings, phone calls, bbq’s whatever you want to call it. The public are not as stupid as you think and your arrogance will bring you undone.
June 8, 2011 at 12:34 PM
I’m delighted to read that the rubbish that is often put before councillors in the guise of reports gets what it deserves from at least a minority of councillors. This has been a long time coming. Maybe everyone will now start to see what is really going on and the continual ridiculous power games that are being played at the expense of residents.
June 9, 2011 at 4:39 PM
I didn’t say I’m sick of hearing that councillors should be able to get things on the agenda. I said I’m sympathetic to the argument that we should, and if there was no other way we could, I would support the motion. I can see how sympathetic can be misheard as sick of.