Perhaps this blog site needs to take a little credit for the miniscule advances that occurred tonight in regard to the Advisory Committee Reports. In the past, committee reports have simply been ‘noted’ and the motion has always included that the recommendations be accepted. Tonight things were different for the Local Laws Committee and the (intended?) removal of the
public questions section from the local law. The report was merely ‘noted’! Here is the sequence of events:
Hyams started off by saying that since these minutes ‘have more substance’ than usual, they’ll deal with them separately. Lipshutz moved that the minutes of the Local Laws Committee ‘be duly noted’. Seconded by Pilling.
LIPSHUTZ: ‘ordinarily I would be moving a motion that would also seek a recommendation …..(but in this case)…this is the beginning of a process…..we also looked at the issue of public questions… (wanted to move an amendment that the word repetitive’ be put into Tang’s request for a report from officers on time taken to respond)….public questions are (currently governed by the Local Law….(which is a) very very blunt instrument…you can’t amend that very quickly….(so we want public questions as policy) which makes it more flexible….(gave examples of other councils where public questions come from the floor) we can’t even look at that….but if it were in policy we could look at all that….and make it more flexible for….the public….(so that’s one issue to bring back to council).
Went on to discuss the local law 326 about permits …..people in gallery ‘will note there have been many questions about this issue by one particular gentleman’….’we looked at the use of our land….we have again made certain recommendations….awaiting officers to come back to us with proposals….it will take some time to get it right….. Nothing will be done until there is a ‘formalised recommendation’ to make to Council. Then public submission.
PILLING; ‘I did have concerns about the public question ….(in favour of) more open procedure….having a more flexible policy can allow for this…changing the local law takes a year or so…..(so supportive of this).
PENHALLURIACK: Local Law 326 has concerned me for a long while…my concern is that we are (comparing like with ike)….don’t think there is any necessity to try and define what sort of sporting body can register’. Supported the other aspects which would allow Council ‘to experiment’ a bit…
LIPSHUTZ: thanked Penhalluriack for his comments and said that 326 was a ‘vexed question’ ….(and the committee looked at) how best to use public land….it was a very very long meeting, much discussion….and not yet considered completed….(once officers’ proposal comes in he is sure that councillors) will play around with….and hopefully come up with something that works best….
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
CONSULTATION COMMITTEE MINUTES
Penhalluriack moved motion to accept recommendations. Seconded by Lipshutz
PENHALLURIACK: ‘These minutes are more comprehensive ….particularly with recommendations from the public…. sets out a vision….’
HYAMS: ‘certainly a fairly significant set of recommendations….we did debate it at quite great length….whether to have an aspirational committee plan above the council plan….(but came to compromise)….and long term council plan which includes a vision …..plan be developed by steering committee (which has 3 external community reps)….asking officers to draft (new engagement strategy based on submissions from public)….and the committee will consider it when (drafted)….in turn will come to council for adoption….(outlined changes such as) ‘proactive engagement’ ‘to clarify where there is input and where there is feedback’….
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
RESPONSES TO PUBLIC QUESTIONS
There were a number of public questions. Several by Mr. Varvodic were again declared inappropriate and classified as ‘harassment’.Responses to others that residents should note are:
1. The application by the MRC for the Centre of the Racecourse will come under the auspices of the Special Committee and NOT FULL COUNCIL
2. Ratepayers will be footing the bill for the convened Planning Panel to consider the 466 Hawthorn Rd Heritage listed properties
3. 20 full page colour ads for GESAC in the Leader over the past few months were reported as costing only $20,000
4. Questions as to policy on notifying residents of planning conference meetings remained unanswered – although ‘responded to’.
5. Questions taken on notice at last council meeting were tabled.
Finally, Cr. Penhalluriack used his ‘Right of Reply’ option to address council on the Bayside Weekly article which appeared this week. We will present a summary of his speech in the next few days.
Glen Eira Debates 
August 9, 2011 at 11:44 PM
There is absolutely no sense of shame in these councillors and no attempt to convey the truth. To remove the public questions section from the Local Law requires an Amendment. An Amendment means that Section 223 of the Local Government Act applies, that is the advertising of the proposed Amendment and then the call for submissions and then gazetting of the Amendment – or that’s the way normal councils operate. The argument that Lipshutz and Pilling put up is thus illogical and sheer bluff. They will have to go through the process to amend the local law, so what’s the point? Having a policy will therefore not be quicker and easier. Either Pilling just doesn’t understand what is involved or it hasn’t been explained to him. Lipshutz and the gang are another kettle of fish though. They want public questions out of the local law so that a policy which will probably restrict questions even more will be introduced. To quote Lipshutz – “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it’ especially when he’s the one who insisted on having the councillors gag included in the Local Law back in 2009 after he failed to get in into the Local Law a few years prior to that. Policy is capable of being manipulated much more than a 10 year Local Law. Residents beware. We’re about to be screwed once again.
August 10, 2011 at 12:02 AM
A quick search located this in response to Anonymous’ comment. It would seem to bear out what he/she is saying – From Maroondah City Council.
PROPOSED LOCAL LAW NO. 9
TO AMEND MEETINGS PROCEDURE AND USE OF COMMON SEAL
LOCAL LAW NO.7
Notice is hereby given that Maroondah City Council, at its meeting held on 21
June 2010, resolved to commence the process for the making of a Local Law
No.9.
The purposes and general purport of the Local Law is to amend Meetings
Procedure And Use of Common Seal Local Law No 7 to –
1. Conform with the provisions of recent legislative changes to the Local
Government Act 1989;
2. Enhance the opportunities for more debate and participation at Council
Meetings; and
3. Incorporate minor changes to processes.
A copy of the proposed Local Law can be obtained from the City Offices,
Braeside Avenue, Ringwood, or Customer Service Centres during normal
office hours. A copy is also available on the website of Council.
Anyone may make a written submission on the proposed Local Law pursuant
to Section 223 of the Local Government Act 1989. Only submissions
received by Council prior to 12 noon Thursday 29 July 2010, shall be
considered.
Anyone who has made a written submission to the Council and requested to
be heard in support of their written submission, is entitled to appear before a
meeting of a Committee of Council on Monday 2 August 2010 at 5:30pm in
the Council Chamber.
Submissions should be addressed to the Chief Executive Officer, Maroondah
City Council, PO Box 156, Ringwood, 3134.
FRANK DIXON
Chief Executive Officer
There’s also this from the Local Laws Manual published by the Department – “Council needs to surmise as to whether the amended Local Law could prompt a community group to want to make a submission. If so, Council needs to commence the public notice process again
in order to afford that opportunity.” AND MORE SIGNIFICANTLY –
“Section 27 of the Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984 gives Council the ability to amend Local Laws. The difficulty is that any amendment (however minor) must be done in the same way as a Local Law was made”
For those interested the entire document can be read at: http://www.dpcd.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/61148/Local-Laws-Manual.pdf
August 10, 2011 at 8:45 AM
With Lipshutz and Tang and Hyam’s history of reducing public input as much as possible and gagging councillors you would really have to have some major doubt as to how these people interpret the word “flexible”. Moreso, to what extent the resulting policy will reduce opportunities for residents to question their representatives and officers. I can only base a view on what’s happened in the past and the motives and outcomes do not augur well for this community.
August 10, 2011 at 9:43 AM
Accepting the recommendations of the consultation committee is more of the same. Hyams calls it a compromise not to have an aspirational community plan and sounds like he thinks thats good enough. Okay there’s going to be a steering committee for a few meetings but if they were fair dinkum about having community representatives on the consultation committee then it should have been for everything and not just for the watered down community plan via the steering committee. I can’t understand why everything is so difficult. Councillors just have to make the recommendation that the committee has permanent community representatives and then vote. That’s all it takes. Not this backwards and forwards and we’ve got to wait for reports from officers.
August 10, 2011 at 10:41 AM
With regard a certain Councillor and their right of reply, is this the article where they made no comment? If this is the case, then you have to question someone who hides from the Press when questioned, and then uses a Council meeting to reply to the Press when the Press has no ability to reply and question. If this is the case, then this in my opinion it is a disgrace,
August 10, 2011 at 12:25 PM
Without seeing the actual question and the response, it’s difficult to gauge what is happening. Having said that, I’m worried that the MRC application won’t be dealt with by a full council but the Special Committee of Lipshutz, Hyams, Esakoff and Pilling. These individuals have let the community down over the C60. There is no reason to expect anything different from them on this application. I see no reason why this application should even be considered by a Special Committee. In the first place the negotations and the principles for the development were ratified by a full council. The MRC application should then go to a full council and not 4 individuals alone. There is a quorum for council to consider the application as well regardless of the potential number of declared conflicts of interest.
Residents really need to get to the planning conferene this coming Monday at 6.30 and make their views known.
August 10, 2011 at 1:24 PM
Does this Council understand they are there to serve us, not themselves, if we ask a question it should be their duty to reply open and honestly. And its also a basic right of ours they are trying to eliminate for no valid reason.
August 10, 2011 at 4:12 PM
Well this really has been the crux of the problem for well over a decade in Glen Eira. Almost without exception the councillors seem to think their job is to support the CEO and the officers no matter what. With this altitude its not long before the poison sets in and the residents become the enemy.
I suppose well dressed bureaucrats with crocodiles smiles in the comfortable town hall environs will win hands down over real people with real problems.
It take a trained person to defuse anger and cut through the bad manners of frustrated people. 99% wont hack it and retreat to the town hall bunker were they are welcomed by the self-serving characters that reside in that place.
If they cow-tau enough they maybe throw a few crumbs of dignity on occasions.
August 10, 2011 at 9:24 PM
Flexible is just such a wonderful weasel word. It hides everything, allows everything and anything, and means nothing. Yes, we’ll get a flexible policy that will allow officers and the gang to do as they like just like with reasonable laws reasonably enforced.