Last Council Meeting saw one public question declared inappropriate on the grounds of ‘harassment’. We’ve just received a copy of this question. It asked:
“1. The last REC meeting determined that the situation with unauthorised sporting groups and in particular the Frisbee group would be monitored. Under this monitoring regime: (a) were any further breaches of the Local Law observed? Was any action taken as a result? (b) will council publish its findings on this continued monitoring?
2. Does any frisbee group have a current ground allocation?”
That such a question could in any shape or form be considered ‘harassment’ is beyond belief. It is every resident’s right to ask about the outcomes resulting from a council resolution. The Recreation Advisory committee recommended further ‘monitoring’ of the situation. This was accepted by Council. It is now nearly two years that constant ‘monitoring’ is in progress. We assume that such monitoring has taken up officers’ time (and hence part of our rates) and therefore it is in the public interest for any outcomes to be reported back to those who pay for such activities. Residents would like to know what ‘progress’ has been made on the issue and whether the Frisbee group that has continually flouted Local Law 326, (and which has lead to accusations of ‘conflict of interest by Lipshutz and Tang) has in fact applied and gained a ground allocation. To label such a question as harassment again reveals:
- the failure of this council to be transparent and upfront about costs, policies, and treating all groups and individuals equally and impartially
- the attempt to avoid scrutiny
- the attempt to cover up an issue which has been in the spotlight for far too long and remains unresolved
- the continued recourse to highly questionable interpretations of meeting procedures
- the failure to be accountable and transparent
We challenge this council to finally come clean and to provide an explanation to residents as to why
- this question was deemed to be harassment
- and why the public should not simply assume that the refusal to answer this question implies that council processes and ‘laws’ are used as tools of convenience whenever uncomfortable questions are asked.
Finally, the central question is: who determined this was ‘harassment’? Esakoff, or did she merely do the bidding of Lipshutz, Hyams and Tang? How many more times will this ruse of ‘harassment’ be used to deflect residents’ questions and maintain the veil of secrecy over so much that goes on in this council?
Glen Eira Debates 
October 18, 2011 at 11:07 PM
When all else fails, then go for the 3 card trick – bullying and harassment. Newton’s taught them well.
October 18, 2011 at 11:27 PM
I honestly don’t care about frisbees or what the local law says about sporting clubs and groups. I do however care about the rights of residents to ask public questions and that these questions should be answered without hiding behind the spurious cloak of “harassment”. I also care about the fact that it’s becoming a regular habit by Esakoff and others to pervert meeting procedures to their vested interests. Recent examples abound – the gagging of Penhalluriack; not moving motions as required and pushing things through into secret in camera meetings; the non appearance of minutes and the continual doctoring of minutes by the gang. I also care about the fact that most councillors sit there like stunned mullets and don’t speak up in public when they know in their heart of hearts that there is major manipulation going on and that they mightn’t agree with it. I can only remember Penhalluriack and Pilling speaking up about their reservations about the way that public questions are answered. That’s not enough to appease me. I’d like to see some integrity and respect for residents. That’s not what we’re getting from the likes of Lipshutz and his band and definitely not from Burke and Newton.
October 19, 2011 at 7:10 AM
Im sure Sir Galahad will ride in and defend the indefensible actions of the princess again.
October 19, 2011 at 7:23 AM
Surely in today’s day where everything is under public scrutiny this could not be allowed to happen. Why are my rates being used on lazy councilors who refuse to answer legitimate public questions. Will the same despicable behavior arise if our whole street asks the public question of why our pavement has not been fixed yet. Or why two lights in our street took almost three months to replace. After all we are your employer and maybe that should be taken into consideration next time you decide to not answer a public question and hide under secrecy..
October 19, 2011 at 9:46 AM
I can’t believe these tactics are allowed to continue without any action from the Inspector or LGV. I think I’m partly to blame for this, as I am the idiot who voted them in last time.
October 19, 2011 at 10:30 AM
The questions seem totally legitimate, non-threatening, valid and courteous, so whats the problem councilors? I expect that a 2 year monitoring effort should produce some kind of public report or recommendation. If this is an open-ended monitoring then what exactly is the purpose of it? What value is being achieved from the investment being made?
October 19, 2011 at 10:41 AM
Well done bloggers for again showing up the abuse of power that goes on in this council.
October 19, 2011 at 11:34 AM
I really have to bring up two points here regarding the hypocrisy of most of these Councillors.
1. Any fair and reasonable bunch of Councillors would admit that yes, whilst there has been a large volume of public questions, those questions have never been answered. I would like to think this is hardly a fair claim to be citing “harassment”, what are they hiding and why is this topic off limits?
All of these Councillors except two (Lobo & Penhalluriack) claim that we are committing “harassment” by asking too many public questions. There might be others but if they don’t speak up (which is their job to represent their constituents) then we can only assume they are colluding with the “gang”.
So they have set a precedent for their threshold of what they consider to be deemed “harassment”, pretty low I would say. Now to put that into context and perspective of how they are a bunch of hypocrites how do they explain the following.
2. I can categorically tell you I have received a written reply to a public question of mine which states in a public forum “when was the last time I bashed my wife”, and implied that ‘I live under a rock’. Lipshutz and those Councillors who didn’t object claim this was asked rhetorically. I don’t care if its asked rhetorically or not its not an appropriate way to answer a public question. I then asked all Councillors (individually except Lobo and Penhalluriack) if they thought this was an appropriate response to a public question and if they had any issues with it.
THEY ALL STATED IT WAS APPROPRIATE AND HAD NO ISSUES WITH IT.
Just so I’m still confused abut the integrity of some of these Councillors, they can make comments like that and its fine, despite the code of conduct but as soon as you ask a public question that they don’t want to answer, its deemed “harassment”?
October 19, 2011 at 12:01 PM
I can’t believe what I’m reading here, I assume it’s all true but I’d still like to hear the councils side of the story.
October 19, 2011 at 2:06 PM
I wouldn’t bother getting another side of the story. This bloke doesn’t like some of the councils policies in relation to use of parks. Instead of lobbying councillors or getting him and his mates to actually stand for council he writes out lists of questins which onlt serve to waste staff time and hence our rates. He is wasting his life don’t let him waste yours as well. He is out of step with 99.9% of others.
October 19, 2011 at 3:21 PM
I don’t read it this way. You’re missing the point I suggest. There have been allegations of conflict of interest which as far as I know are not settled. Then there’s this issue about disallowing questions because it’s claimed they’re harrassment. I can’t see anything in the question that would qualify as harassment. Imagine that this isn’t about parks or frisbees but any other issue. We do have a right to ask what is going on and how our rates are being spent. This ploy of harassment opens a real can of worms and allows council to stonewall any question on any issue it doesn’t want looked at. Esakoff’s ruling is highly suspect and makes it appear that all she’s doing is protecting Lipshutz and Tang, or perhaps returning some favours after the heritage debacle? Squashing public questions is not on regardless of the issue.
October 19, 2011 at 3:56 PM
This bloke has submitted hundreds of questions with the aim of being noticed to the point that the Council did something about his actions. The questions were often repetitive and he sometimes he asked the same question to individual councillors. He never liked the answers he got so he would be back next week asking more questions. Most reasonable people would accept the situation as most mature adults do when they learn of their position. This character is either immature or lacks the judgement to understand when his behaviour moves from being a legitimate protest to becoming staight up anti social. As much as many that contribute to this blog may have enjoyed his antics (because it appeared to trouble the town hall) I would say that not one of them would have continued on as he has. It is just simply silly. I understand that he no longer lives in the district. Some people are born losers other make themselves into one. Not sure where this bloke fits.
October 19, 2011 at 6:31 PM
Mr Anonymous,
You are entitled to your opinion and I have no issues with anyone taking pot shots at me, but loser is probably a little bit rich considering you hide under the pseudonym “anonymous” I mean I can hardly judge your contributions to society based on that can I, fair is fair so let me judge you too, anyhow,
The issue you bring up about “no longer living in the district”, what is your point?
I’ll repeat it again because you obviously didn’t read about it the first time. It has been discussed with Council before in Mayor Tang office, they do not have an issue that I no longer live in North Caulfield, Penhalluriack does not live in the “district” either, you got an issue with that too?
I am merely a spokesperson for our group, 95% of our group are ratepayers, would you like the spokesperson to come from North Caulfield, will that appease you?
Regardless of this fact are you saying I am not allowed to ask a public question as I no longer reside in the “district”?
If Council can take my money for permits/insurance and fines then I think I’m, or one of our paying group, is entitled to ask a question regardless of where I now reside.
So what is your point about no longer living in the district if I may kindly ask?
October 19, 2011 at 7:38 PM
Regardless of where you live your behaviour has been immature. You may be young so I guess that would be your defence. Your tactics are that of a school child. I hope for your sake you grow up one day soon. There are plenty of worthy causes that you may wish to devote your efforts toward. I am sure you would be successful as you have demonstrated a high level of determination. Give it up and get on with your life. One day people may see you as something other than a nutter. Good luck. mate.
October 19, 2011 at 3:54 PM
Mr Anonymous, that bloke represents us the ratepayers who are in the group, we also think he is doing a sterling job for us. Out of interest how did you calculate a figure of 99.9%, the comments and stats that have been evident over the last few years would indicate you fabricated that number. Maybe next time try a figure that is a little bit more realistic if you want readers to believe you. Do you realise how large a number 99.9% actually is?
October 19, 2011 at 4:35 PM
99.9% hahaha who is this clown, what did you read that off the sanitizer next to your PC.
October 19, 2011 at 5:24 PM
Anth – to hear Council’s side of the story you can ask a public question or individually contact your Counillors. Good luck and don’t hold your breath.
October 19, 2011 at 5:01 PM
All this gets back to lack of open space in Glen Eira, sure Newton has privatised some many once owned ratepayer pieces of land around the place, aggravating the problem, but the councillors have voted them though, usually in ignorance.
Remember Burke’s great radio debut, when he tried to rationalize the reasons why he wanted to stop a few kids from kicking a football in Princes Park, why, because it caused wear a tear to his precious grass.
What’s changed, except! the grass has got real expensive, months and months work to lay turf for each sporting ground, hundreds and hundreds of thousand of dollars for each field. All a gamble on the weather, a huge expenditure for the sporting population of Glen Eira a mere 16% which only a smaller percentage of that 16% would be playing field sports.
You think it’s bad now, come back in 20 years time when the summers are longer and hotter, water is more expensive and the population is 200,000 plus and see the battles over who has access to what and when.
October 20, 2011 at 1:10 PM
nO MATTER WHAT THIS CONCIIL IS ASKED THEY FAIL TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. ONLY THOSE WHO REALLY WANT AN ANSWER DESPERATELY AND ARE PERSISTANT WRITE OVER AND AGAIN FOR STILL AN INACCURATE REPLY.
October 20, 2011 at 3:49 PM
H man
My understanding of coucilor chambers is to answer questions from its constituence not lambaste rate paying members.Harrassment is not a term any
counciL should use in a sentence let alone one of its members. Grow up coucilors and get a spine.
October 20, 2011 at 4:03 PM
To Anonymous,
You sound very much like a council stooge, i dear say you are one as you lack the same spine as this council, try and be a big person and put a name to it.