Sadly, we are becoming increasingly accustomed to the games that this administration (and some councillors) insist on playing at the expense of proper governance and adherence to council’s own policies. The latest example involves public questions that have been ‘taken on notice’. A few facts first.
Council’s Local Law states that questions may be taken on notice and that responses “shall be given within a reasonable time (usually in less than ten working days).” Most people would assume that this means more than simply a letter of response to the questioner. Then there is also this: “Where an answer is given later in writing, the question shall be resubmitted to the meeting at which the answer is available and both the question and the answer shall be recorded in the minutes of that meeting.”
At the May 17th Council meeting a series of questions from Mr. Varvodic was taken on notice. Since then we have had another council meeting and no response to these questions has been forthcoming. If included in the next council meeting minutes, that will make it 6 weeks for a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer to the vast majority of these questions.
Readers will remember that the issue of ‘vexatious questions’ has previously come up under Lipshutz’s role on the Local Laws Committee. We simply ask:
- Is the tardy non answering and non publication of answers merely a de facto introduction of this ‘policy’ since it would appear to achieve the same outcome?
- Why should it take at least 3 council meetings to publish responses?
- Is this a tactic that will now be continually employed whenever ‘uncomfortable’ public questions are asked by ratepayers?
- Surely the combined intellectual powers of Newton, Burke, Lipshutz and Hyams can do better than this silly stalling game?
June 18, 2011 at 12:25 PM
I’d like to congratulate Mr. Varvodic on his persistence and refusal to be fobbed off by the gang of four. His concerns are genuine and deserve honest answers. As far as I can tell what’s at stake here is not frisbees but the role that certain councillors have played and the potential for a real conflict of interest. Liphsutz’s and Tang’s involvement with this group is suspect and the influence they may have exerted and continue to exert is also questionable. There’s also Hyams’ insistence that the minutes of a meeting be emasculated to literally nothing. This also needs answers. Finally the fact that this has now dragged on for nearly a year is deplorable. Council should simply admit that it’s made a mistake and then move forward. This obstinacy is only costing ratepayers money in officers’ time and energy. The whole saga is a public relations disaster and alerts residents to the fact that nothing that is provided in responses to public questions should be taken at face value.
June 18, 2011 at 12:30 PM
I think it is pretty obvious why they will not answer the public questions as they are snookered in a corner. Still they should be required to answer them, thats my view.
June 18, 2011 at 12:36 PM
I’ll tell you why they wont answer them Anon, because they have been exposed. How can we have a transparent council which we trust when they cant even answer a simple yes or no question. Not good enough for mine but im glad its been brought to my attention.
June 18, 2011 at 12:41 PM
Its all about transparency and accountability, without that you have nothing, if you cant answer a simple question with a yes or no, what else are you hiding? Good on them for having a go at the councillors because im sick and tired of them getting away with whatever they want. This C60 has really tipped me over the edge with them.
June 18, 2011 at 12:48 PM
This is brilliant, the gang is crumbling and being exposed. Who would have thought, it certainly will give us all food for thought come next election time. Well not really they wont go close to getting a vote off me next time around.
June 18, 2011 at 12:53 PM
The Lawyers Vs The Labourer
I love a good ending, well done guys on your persistence keep up the great work.
June 18, 2011 at 5:04 PM
It really is disgusting that a Council can get away with this type of behavior in todays society when things are supposed to be under such high scrutiny. At some stage they must take responsibility for there actions and the matter getting to the point it currently is. We as ratepayers deserve the right to ask questions, have our questions treated with dignity and respect no matter how awkward they might be. And in return we should at least get honest answers that council can justify to th public who vote them in. Sorry council but you have really botched this one and you should have nipped it in the bud a long time ago and just admit you probably got this one wrong. If these recent events and none bigger than C60 continue – well where are we headed as a municipality.
June 18, 2011 at 5:52 PM
Betya the next trick they try is the 15 minute stuff about public questions. sorry mate but we can’t read em out cos it wld take longer than 15 minutes.
June 18, 2011 at 11:45 PM
Tang tried that at the last council meeting and fortunately he was outvoted – but no doubt the 15 minute rule will rear it’s ugly head in the very near future. If anyone doubts this I suggest they look at the recent posting on the community engagement strategy. This Council wants us to pay up and shut up.
June 19, 2011 at 2:02 PM
Is the questioner a resident of our Municipality?
June 19, 2011 at 11:18 PM
Perhaps we need a Wikileaks in GE! New technology and social media will continue to revolutionise accountability. This blog is an example, however, the debate here should be meaningful, measured and offer some viable solutions to the many concerns raised. Hopefully, the time will come when there’ll be nowhere to hide for anyone in power who fails to carry out their role with in an open and transparent way. One can only assume that if this is not the case then there is something to hide.
June 21, 2011 at 2:39 AM
No matter what they are asked they fail to answer. There have been many questions read out concerning Cr Tang’s absences from the special meetings which he has been chosen to represent the City of Glen Eira at the Caulfield Racecourse Trustees Meetings and it would seem he is absent. Why cannot he explain why as asked. ???????
Also how come it has now taken over 11 months for Councillor Whiteside to be replaced by a councillor as a Caulfield Racecourse Trustee kmember?????/
Is it control by absenteeism?????????
June 21, 2011 at 2:44 AM
With knowledge of the “frisbee affair” and the non;compliance of a booking and therefore the lack of insurance although the frisbee players are friends of some of the said councillor lawyers then I ask them to consider the Education Department’s liability in a scool playground when a coin was proved to have blinded a secondary student when it hit her in the eye and leaving her blind in one eye. Do you think council would be proven liable if the edge of a frisbee blinded a young child or a walker just passing by the area of the park…Injurues are always possible.