The agenda items for next Tuesday’s council meeting represent the absolute rock bottom in the history of this dysfunctional Council. The onus is now very clearly on councillors to stand up and question, and ultimately reject the appalling manipulation that is evidenced by these items. We’ll go through the most important ones:
- Local Laws Advisory Committee (Lipshutz, Tang, Pilling)
When the Local Law came up for consideration in 2009, the argument that several residents put forward was that the Councillor Questions Policy (ie. the ‘no surprises’ gag) should not be included in the Local Law. This was of course rejected! Now, funnily enough, we have the committee recommending:
“that the public questions process be removed from the Local Law and replaced with a right to ask questions in accordance with guidelines in force from time to time. The guidelines would need to be approved by Council.
Cr Tang requested a report as to the time taken up in answering public questions”.
When literally every other council in the state includes Public Questions as part of its Meeting Procedures within the Local Law, why is Lipshutz (aka Newton) and his gang determined to be different? What are the ramifications of such a change? And what little cute Dorothy Dixer is Tang playing at? We are also concerned as to the LEGALITY of such an attempt to abort democratic process given that the Local Government Act, 1989 states: “A Council must make local laws governing the conduct of meetings of the Council and special committees”. Public questions are part of council meetings and as such must be included in a local law!
2. Community Consultation Committee
Again in stark contrast to previous practice the so called ‘Engagement Strategy’ has now been left in the hands of Esakoff, Hyams and Lipshutz! The 12 submissions that were received are not published, no names are given, and it is this committee which is to make recommendations to council. All well and good, except that Council does not appear to have had any privacy concerns when it published in full, submissions to the Toilet strategy, and other minor ‘consultations’.
We can only marvel at the ‘selectiveness’ of this mob and how transparency and by implication accountability is sabotaged time and time again!
If there is nothing to hide and if the officers’ report is a true reflection of the comments made by residents, then why not publish the full submissions? Why not go to full council? We can only wonder whether ALL COUNCILLORS HAVE EVEN READ THE SUBMISSIONS. For something as important as engagement/consultation, what we have here is again a sham and an insult to those individuals who submitted and to residents everywhere.
3. In Camera Items
This is where things get really interesting. One item concerns the MRC and Crown Land. We thus ask: why is council considering it (and in camera) if this concerns the land swap between the MRC and govt? What of the subdivision? Why is the community again being kept in the dark?
Then there’s the GESAC legal bills over allocations, and ‘contractual’ items over GESAC. If everything is going so well (ie on time and on budget) then what’s there to mull over ‘contracts’ at this point in time? Or is the public again being sold a furphy on progress of GESAC?
Another interesting item from this section relates to ‘personnel’ and compliance with the Local Government Act! Gosh, another potential breach of the act by someone? Another Municipal Investigation perhaps? or more work for the Ombudsman?
There’s plenty more in these items that require careful reading. The ball is now in councillors’ court. Will they once again acquiesce without a whimper? Will anyone have the guts to open their mouths and demand answers to fundamental questions of process, transparency and good governance? Or will silence and complicity reign supreme?
Glen Eira Debates 
August 5, 2011 at 6:13 PM
Glen Eira is fast approaching the People’s Republic of China and Lipshutz’s “born to rule” mentality fits right in. No wonder he’s been kicked out of so many organisations which just couldn’t stomach his “Im right” and “you’re nothing” approach. Manipulation is correct. But I’d go even further and call it (MODERATORS: word deleted)
August 5, 2011 at 7:03 PM
What organisations has he been kicked out from.
August 5, 2011 at 10:26 PM
When faced with uncomfortable questions this council resorts to throwing the baby out with the bath water – which has undoubtedly been the objective all along. This agenda sets a dangerous precedent that harks back to the early days when no question was answered at council meetings and residents had to wait months and months to receive a reply which was then not published in the minutes, but in the fleeting agenda papers. Via such tactics nothing was answered, residents were fobbed off, and accountability was still born. This is where we’re heading now under this regime to a place where accountability and transparency just don’t matter, much less exist. It’s a really sad day for Glen Eira.
August 5, 2011 at 11:18 PM
This is insanity. My understanding is that all advisory committee recommendations are simply put to the vote via a motion that says “accept minutes and recommendations”. What this means is that council will be voting to change the local law without a full council debate. There isn’t even the token officer’s report. Even more crazy, the vote will remove public questions without the new “guidelines” being presented. How on earth can anything be removed without knowing exactly what is going to replace them and whether the suggested replacement is an improvement? This is designed so that the issue of repeated questions and possible “harassment” is all kept under cover and no-one has to come out and say anything because such a position is impossible to defend. You can’t say that the asking of public questions that aren’t answered amounts to harassment – I’m thinking of the frisbee issue. This is the devious way that Lipshutz has squirmed out of this and the bonus for him and others is that another avenue of public input is closed off because you can lay bets on the fact that the new guidelines will be even more restrictive than what we’ve got now.
Pilling on his blog has said that he wants more openness. We will se what he’s got to say on this or whether he buckles under with his recently acquired friends Lipshutz and Tang. Words are always really cheap. My vote is based on actions not promises that are sold out or forgotten.
August 6, 2011 at 10:43 AM
No “token officers report” is precisely why advisory committee is dealing with stuff. Even if there was one it doesn’t get made public – that’s the way these committees work. I’m not jumping for joy either because they recommend 3 community reps. Odds on these people will be carefully handpicked stooges or nice gentle folk who haven’t got any idea of whats going on.
August 6, 2011 at 9:21 AM
What a constant source of non-positive astonishment this Council is. Now we have a recommendation to amend Local Law to remove the “public question process” from Local Law and instead be merely referenced by that Law. No discussion as to
. why this is deemed to be way to go
. what will become the “public question process” or
. what procedures will govern the “from time to time” changes to the “public question process”
Without a full and open discussion of the above points, such a change places residents’ rights to ask public questions in serious jeopardy and should be opposed.
That this proposed change arises from Tang’s question re the time given to public questions is a heavy handed approach that provides yet another example of how Council views residents. If public questions are becoming an issue shouldn’t Council be questioning how adequately they are addressing the concerns of residents rather than looking at ways to restrict residents asking the questions that they should be asking.
August 6, 2011 at 1:01 PM
Paradise for Newton and Lipshutz is when no public questions are asked and when there’s nobody in the gallery to keep the bastards honest. If they had their way there wouldn’t even be the charade of council meetings. It’s a waste of time because they’ve already made the decisions beforehand and Lipshutz is such a busy busy man after all.
August 6, 2011 at 2:44 PM
This is a disgrace if it gets up, Its our right to ask question of councillors we elect.
August 7, 2011 at 9:23 AM
Judging by your comments on this blog you didn’t elect any of the current councillors.