What a sad, sad, state of affairs we appear to have come to in Glen Eira! And it’s not just for this last year either. Below is a comparative table of councillor telephone expenses for Glen Eira and 2 of our neighbouring councils. Kingston figures are for one quarter – hence they would need to be quadrupled to attain an approximation of the full year’s expenditure.
|
GLEN EIRA 1st Dec.,2009 – 1st Nov.2010 |
STONNINGTON (1 year to December |
KINGSTON July-Sept. 2010 |
||||
| Penhalluriack | $146.- | Athanasopoulos | $1975.99 | Staikos | $857.55 | |
| Whiteside (to30th July,2010) | $580.- | Chandler | $1616.38 | Athanasopoulos | $489.96 | |
| Hyams | $140.- | Hannon | $678.64 | Peulich | $907.94 | |
| Magee | $696.- | Hindle | $1731.97 | Brownlees | $324.54 | |
| Esakoff | $69.- | Nicholls | $567.92 | West | $324.54 | |
| Lipshutz | $32.- | O’Shea | $3202.68 | Dundas | $446.12 | |
| Pilling | $223.- | Sehr | $1066.51 | Bauer | $916.48 | |
| Lobo | $255.- | Smith | $4797.46 | Ronke | $324.54 | |
| Tang | $729.- | Ullin | $2256.19 | Shewan | $685.85 | |
| Forge (From 31st August 2010) | $16.- | |||||
So what conclusions may be drawn from the above statistics? –
- Are Glen Eira councillors doing their jobs? Maybe an investigation should be undertaken to determine why these councillors’ expenses are miniscule compared to their colleagues? It is incomprehensible that Lipshutz should only have a mobile phone bill of ~$30 per year (and the same for the previous year). Does this mean that no resident rings him? That councillors as a whole receive very few phone calls? That these aren’t answered?
- Or is the truth that these councillors simply refuse to use council provided phones for fear of possible tracking devices? That they don’t want super sleuth officers to know whom they’ve been talking with, much less what they’ve been talking about? That the fear of god has been put into them following the phone business of the past?
Whatever the truth is, other councils just do not have this problem. When others are spending literally thousands and thousands on their mobile phones, with not a whimper from anyone, then Glen Eira stands out like a beacon. There are only two logical possibilities here – either councillors are not doing their jobs as representatives of the people, or they don’t like the possible surveillance that using council supplied phones might imply. We have been told numerous times that various councillors have directed residents not to ring them on their council phones, nor to email them on council email accounts. Why? If there is trust, respect, and a sound working relationship, then there wouldn’t be the need to hide conversations and correspondence.
It’s just a great pity then that when a public question on this issue of surveillance was raised at the last council meeting and responses invited from each councillor (admittedly on emails), all but Penhalluriack sat there in silence. Silence is consent councillors! And look where that’s got us!
Glen Eira Debates 
October 20, 2011 at 2:15 PM
Wow! Fascinating figures. What a coincidence that the gang’s mobile phones just happen to have the lowest cost. Tang can be excluded in 2010 since he was mayor and presumably had many social engagements and appointments to fix up. But, as for the rest. Well, where’s there’s smoke there’s fire I always think.
October 20, 2011 at 2:34 PM
Who would ring Lipshutz, you know what he’s going to say, so why would you bother. He not there to do a his job as a an elected rep, he there for his private calling, totally independent of coarse.
October 20, 2011 at 3:49 PM
Maybe some of the Councillors may be well organised and make most of their calls from the Council provided landline. I think calls from these phones would be probably free to another landline. You can’t read too much into what a Councillor is up to by their phone bill. As far as earning their keep it is a rare event that Magee turns up at any civic event for Council. He is just a non starter. He is not well organised and makes calls from his mobile knowing the ratepayers will pick up the tab. He doesn’t speak much at meetings. Must save it up for his phone calls. Tang was mayor in that year so that would explain his higher amount. It would be interesting to understand the incoming calls. That would tell a story.
October 20, 2011 at 5:47 PM
Unfortunately your analysis is incorrect Anonymous. The Stonnington figures provide expenditure for both mobiles and landlines. The landline figures are in the order presented:
Anthanopoulos – $2219.84
Chandler – $2309.53
Hannan – $1885.35
Hindle – $2288.32
Nicholls – $1881.11
O’Shea – $1666.34Sehr – $2374.22
Smith – $3917.37
Ullin – $4317.18
Glen Eira does not provide these figures, hence councillors prefer to use their own phones otherwise all costs to the community would need to be included in the audit of councillors’ expenses as with Stonnington and other councils.
October 20, 2011 at 10:15 PM
Personally I think the anwer to the phone bill question is that Councillor’s don’t trust the securirty on their Council provided phones. Incoming calls are free, outgoing calls are charged according to the plan. $32 (the Lip) and $69 (Margie) indicates mistrust of Admin monitoring or that they are not doing their job. Somehow I can’t see saving money is a justification, but you, the residents of Glen Eira, be the judge.
October 20, 2011 at 10:24 PM
Well organised Councillors, not what I have seen. And expecting us to believe that Councillors (particularly Lipshutz and Esakoff) hurry home or to Council offices to respond to each mobile call by their Council provided landline beggars belief.
October 20, 2011 at 10:43 PM
Look out Magee … you are being targetted.
While I don’t subscribe to your infallibility the above singles you out – after Frank you are next on the list. Continue with the kindergarten relocatuon and you will be up for bullying. The files beingcompiled, do not speak to any Council Amin officer, particularly senior, unless you have a witness and take copious notes.
Fellow posters sit back and watch, Frank will fall, Magee will be next (that is assuming he shows the wherewithall of Frank to speak out and has witnesses and notes)
Ask yourselves if this is really what you want
October 20, 2011 at 7:04 PM
I agree with some of the comments here. A year’s tally of $32, $69 and $140 for three councillors supposedly performing their duties is pretty poor. I also find it hard to swallow that these three in particular weren’t on the phone to each other at least twice a day working out strategies with input from nameless others. Their home phones and personal mobiles must have been ringing hot! The difference between this council and the others is just so huge that any reasonable person would want to start asking why as the blog does. Another blot on this whole damn lot.
October 20, 2011 at 8:56 PM
Lipsh (Moderators:suffix deleted) phone bill would be comparable to his Internet blogsite account that he promised at the last election and hasn’t updated for the last three years. Residents of Camden – bah humbug!
October 20, 2011 at 10:35 PM
My kingdom for a phone and email that’s not bugged and which can’t be used against me should I displease their majesties Newton and Burke. Just wish I had the guts to say this out in the open.