We’ve just learnt that public questions regarding the Frisbee affair are now being deemed as ‘harassment’ by this council and will forever more be categorised as ‘inappropriate’ and hence will not be read, nor answered at Council Meetings. Regardless of the rights or wrongs of this specific issue, we believe that such an action is unconscionable and denies residents their basic right to question council actions, policy, and veracity of responses.
It would appear that when council is faced with uncomfortable issues that the harassment and bullying card becomes the preferred option. We’ve recently witnessed the bullying allegations against Penhalluriack (presumably for his ‘crime’ of asking questions of the CEO) and now the harassment allegation against those individuals requesting clarification on council’s so called policy of reasonable laws, reasonably enforced’. It would also seem that when Council is unable to answer appropriately for its shortcomings, then the only way out of such a dilemma is to play this harassment/bullying game.
Residents’ rights to ask public questions, to query policy decisions, and to demand accountability and transparency are fundamental to the good governance of all councils. When questions are continually fobbed off and answers are nothing more than dissembling and a game of semantics, then all fair minded people should be outraged. We urge all residents who care about what is happening in this council to send in their public questions and insist that whatever their concern or issue, that these questions are answered comprehensively and honestly.
PS: here is the offending paragraph : “As Council has received over one hundred and thirty (130) Public Questions this year alone on this matter, having consulted with Councillors and considered concerns raised, I wish to advise you that further Public Questions on this matter will be deemed inappropriate pursuant to Local Law 232 (2) (j) (iii) on the grounds that they may constitute harassment. Thank you for your Public Question.”
Glen Eira Debates 
July 9, 2011 at 1:54 PM
Congratulations to the Frisbee fighters. You have exposed the true devious workings of this council and the gang of four. They don’t like something so they resort to bluff and bullshit, but never but never answer a question that will incriminate them. Newton has shown them the way with this bullying rubbish and now it will be used again and again to silence anyone who dares question and refuses to be intimidated by this pathetic lot. We do not have a council, we have a bunch of incompetent sycophants who are only interested in saving their own skins.
July 9, 2011 at 3:59 PM
I can assure you its true, at the bottom of my replies that were taken on notice it states.
“As Council has received over one hundred and thirty (130) public questions this year alone on the matter, having consulted with Councillors and considered concerns raised, I wish to advise you that further public questions on this matter will be deemed inappropriate pursuant to Local Law 232 (2) (j) (iii) on the grounds that they may constitute harassment.”
This is just outright bullying and intimidation.
1. If only they enforced Local Law 326 (permits required for sporting activities) in the same manner as this.
2. Its unfair and unreasonable to produce false representing figures like 130, the same question has been asked up to 10 times with no proper reply. If you answer the question the first time properly it might not need to be repeated over and over again. Our questions have not been “answered” – they have only been RESPONDED TO.
3. I am merely the messenger for our group, simple as that. If they prefer others from our group can write in or we can get a petition with signatures. But what are they saying if 130 people write in about the same issue it will be deemed “harassment”?
4. We understand that we have written a large mount of public questions but with the case and evidence we hold, along with the pathetic replies we get they are justified. This is blatant favoritism/nepotism at its very best, everyone can see it except for them.
5. This attempt to shut us down only exposes them further. Well what does that say about democracy, transparency and good governance at this Council.
6. The other thing that all these lawyers need to look at is what happens if someone is injured by this frisbee group that has no insurance. What will Lipshutz, Hyams and Esakoff then have to say when they get the pants sued off them? Risk management is also their responsibility.
This is not directed to Cr Lobo, Cr Penhalluriack and Cr Magee. As for Cr Forge well she just sits on the fence with her replies so we have no idea what her opinion on the issue is.
July 10, 2011 at 6:52 PM
You seem to have something against some councillors but exempt other from you rage and disent. Why exclude Magee, Penhaulurick and Lobo? They are part of the Council. I have observed your questions over the past year. In racing parlance people would say that you have “gone a bit wide on the turn.” People do this from time to time in society. Stop being cheeky and have some respect, please.
July 11, 2011 at 2:29 PM
Thats coz they are not part of the gang or Quaddie, hes doing a great job for us and we support what he says on our behalf. I reckon you got it wrong, hes going for the sling shot off the home turn and up the crown of the track in the better going, the rail is off. I think your quaddie mates have been nobbled too, might have to get the testers out. As for being cheeky and showing some respect, well your showing your intelligence there, you know the saying people in glass houses you know what. happy punting
July 11, 2011 at 4:19 PM
Anth, relax will ya, your dealing with a Manangatang Picnic Maiden runner, and they are not the Quaddie they are a flexi first 4.
July 9, 2011 at 2:51 PM
This is disgraceful and I dont know but can they legally do this? The day we are not allowed to ask questions to the councillors we elect is they day that we need change. I have followed this at arms length but good on them and good luck in their pursuit for equal rights.
July 9, 2011 at 3:31 PM
They can go and get you know what. We can and will ask a public question when ever we feel like it. How dumb are they trying to intimidate and play tough guy when they are clearly in the wrong. How about you focus on the issue at hand and that is the conflict of interest. Harassment, hahahaha seriously what are you on. If you have more cracking jokes like that come down tomorrow for a chin wag, I’d love to hear more pearlers like that.
July 9, 2011 at 4:40 PM
This new approach to dealing with complaints and public questions really worries me because it sets a very dangerous precedent. If for example 100 public questions were to arrive questioning councillors about their decision making processes on the C60 for example, would this also be labelled as “harassment”? There is no arbiter on what even constitutes “harassment” except for one individual and the cited paragraph states that it “may constitute harassment”. What is, and what “may” be are two different things entirely. To exclude public questiions on any issue simply because they “may” be unwelcome undermines public confidence in this council. It is incredibly arrogant, as well as reprehensible that in any democracy people are not allowed to express their viewpoints, ask questions and receive honest and full responses. If this council had been more upfront to begin with I doubt that all of these questions would have needed to be asked. If anyone is to blame then it is councillors themselves for their sheer obstinancy in refusing to admit to error and their relentless attempts to cover up their mistakes. I certainly expect that when mistakes are made that they will be owned up to. But to resort to these tactics of sabotaging all normal processes is totally abhorrent and inexcusable.
July 9, 2011 at 4:52 PM
Well said have to agree with all that, I think they will realise they have made a huge mistake here. They have shot themselves in the foot, what are they going to do with 100 C60 questions, say its now “harassment”, there will be community outrage.
July 9, 2011 at 5:07 PM
The ol’ adage of give em enough rope and they’ll hand themselves is dead right. Lipshutz has really hung himself with this ol con job. When he doesn’t get his vexatious questions bit into the local law – cos it’s probably too much trouble and would cause a real outcry – he and his buddies resort to this rubbish. From someone who has bullied and insulted more people than i can count this is really rich. How about another tirade in council councillor? Or how about showing your true colours once again mr mild mannered hyams? and how about esakoff actually doing her job properly and not simply being a stooge for everyone else and putting her signature to every bit of lousy government this mob produces.
July 9, 2011 at 5:11 PM
I think this is actually more significant than what most people think. We can safely assume that all future questions will not be answered on this matter. Therefore the wording in the reply from Council that states “will be deemed inappropriate as they may constitute harassment” takes on an even greater significance. If Councillors decide to go ahead and not answer the questions I think it’s fair to say they are deeming that “harassment” has taken place. I think they are playing with fire here and might just find themselves getting their fingers burnt, I’ll watch with interest.
July 9, 2011 at 5:37 PM
Could you please tell me, how many other councils have enforced this supposed ruling on their community? On what grounds have they stated that this is acceptable?
July 9, 2011 at 5:40 PM
I would like the council members to explain to me how I am expected to encourage family and friends to move away from their X-BOX or computers to get outside and play a social game of soccer, cricket or whatever else. If these ill-informed and inconsiderate laws are implemented then there is no way.
July 9, 2011 at 5:43 PM
With the ever increasing problem of obesity, how can council possibly recommend that people should not be on the park exercising as a group? This poses a higher strain on our health system and makes no sense.
July 9, 2011 at 5:45 PM
This is just nothing more than council flexing their muscles and making rate-payers feel this small.
July 9, 2011 at 11:35 PM
You’re only half right. The object isn’t to make ratepayers “feel small” since there is literally no concern or respect for ratepayers whatsoever. How they feel is totally irrelevant to the vast majority of these councillors. If it were any different then they would have listened to people’s views on the racecourse and the C60. It’s not even about “flexing muscles” – it’s all about shutting people up and the question of right or wrong or morality and ethics doesn’t enter into any of this at all. This group of soccer players should be commended for at last forcing this council to show its true colours. I hope they spread the word far and wide so that we can ensure that these people are never, ever again re-elected.
July 9, 2011 at 7:48 PM
What’s the Frisbee affair ?
July 9, 2011 at 7:59 PM
I cant believe a council could be so stupid, did they run this past corporate council. They will be the laughing stock of councils come Monday morning.
July 9, 2011 at 8:01 PM
what is really unsatisfactory is that there is not even an attempt to resolve an issue like this. this council is divided and it is quite clear that this division now affects the glen eira communities, who are also divided. the divisions have not been helped by 3 investigations of the council. clearly the source of divisions are not just councillors. it’s clearly the divisive, anti-community administration that needs attention.
i hope that next time the election comes voters are clear on who to elect and what fundamental changes such councillors need to make inside the administration to ensure community members have a say in the affairs of glen eira council.
July 9, 2011 at 11:16 PM
You cannot be serious. I think I may go and play with the frisbee group, wear my German top and accidentally roll my ankle and sue the group and council. When is the next game please.
July 10, 2011 at 8:09 AM
Correction, free speech is now dead in Glen Eira. Democracy died in February when 4 Councillors out of 9 voted for C60.
July 10, 2011 at 6:38 PM
The outcome would not be any different if all Councillors had voted. Get over it.
July 10, 2011 at 7:23 PM
The truth behind the four councillors decisions behind supporting C60 will soon break and not even the Leader will be able to ignore it. The timing however is best before an election so we will just have to wait but it is fair to say that at least one and possibly two members of the Council will have their political careers in tatters…
July 10, 2011 at 1:28 PM
I don’t agree with several of the sentiments expressed here. Public Questions are covered by S232 of Glen Eira’s Local Law 2009. It lists multiple grounds on which a question may be deemed inappropriate. 232(2)(j)(iii) for example: “is defamatory, indecent, may constitute discrimination, vilification, harassment or may place the Council at risk of legal action”. Well I agree, people shouldn’t be harrassed. I also think its reasonable to consider being asked repeatedly the same questions with minor variations in a very aggressive tone to be harassment.
What would be unacceptable would be to declare questions inappropriate because they may cause embarrassment for some of the people involved. I’m uncomfortable that under the Local Law there is no recourse if that happens. It was recently reported that embarrassment was the reason for an FOI application being refused at State level so some people might indeed be prepared to use it.
On the evidence available to me S232 has been followed. Now we could have a debate about how S232 should be changed if people aren’t happy with it. We can never precisely legislate behaviour though, so whatever is written can and will be stretched to its limits.
If we are debating the Local Law then we might as well include S326 “Organised activities”, since that is at the heart of the original complaint. Despite having heard many of the questions asked of Council, I can’t recall a proposal for how it should be redrafted. At the tail of it is a rather vague “This clause should not unreasonably capture smaller informal groups”, without providing advice about what is unreasonable, or smaller, or distinguishes informal from formal. It appears to be left up to the judgement of Council Officers in the first instance. It can be a pretty strong motivation for change if poor judgement is repeatedly demonstrated. Council was embarrassed over threatening a bunch of children with $250 fines.
While discussing Council, we need to be clear about the distinction between Councillors and Council Officers. The conduct of both are covered by Local Government Act 1989. Councillors for example “must not improperly direct or improperly influence, or seek to improperly direct or improperly influence, a member of Council staff in the exercise of any power or in the performance of any duty or function by the member”. Under 95(1) Council staff must (a) “act impartially” and (b) “act with integrity including avoiding conflicts of interest”. Breaches of LGA can be dealt with via the Local Government Investigations and Compliance Inspectorate.
I’m amazed that anybody would actually want to be a Councillor, but that’s another story.
July 10, 2011 at 4:30 PM
Reprobate, I’d like to suggest that perhaps your comments have failed to consider one essential point. When residents don’t get satisfactory answers (and by that I don’t mean answers that they don’t like) then there is frustration and indignation. If anyone has taken the trouble to either ask a public question, or even scanned previous answers to questions they are generally poorly answered. Either important parts of the question are totally ignored in the response, or the answer is so general that it’s impossible to pinpoint anything. This is not good public relations and people do have the right to demand an answer, not just a response, to what they’ve asked.
July 12, 2011 at 12:43 PM
In general I agree with this, but after reading the numerous posts in this forum regarding the entire matter, I consider it reasonable for any related question to be delivered with some degree of attitude, especially given some of the aggressive and personal responses Mr Varvodic has received to his questions, he seems to have handled himself quite well considering. That being said, it does appear that the law is being abused to serve a specific purpose here. ie to continue to avoid the questions