Our urging for the publication of the October 4th Special Committee Meeting Minutes has paid off. They are now available on Council’s website. Here is the important parts of these pseudo minutes –
PRESENTATION OF CONFIDENTIAL ITEMS
Crs Hyams/Lipshutz
That the meeting be now closed to members of the public under Section 89(2) (a) ‘personnel’ and (d) contractual’ of the Local Government Act 1989 which relates to the review of the performance of the Chief Executive Officer
The Mayor called for a vote on the Motion. Five Councillors voted and three Councillors declined to vote.
The Mayor again called for a vote on the Motion. Five Councillors voted and three Councillors declined to vote.
DIVISION
Cr
Esakoff called for a Division on the voting of the Motion.
FOR AGAINST
Cr Esakoff Cr Forge
Cr Hyams
Cr Lipshutz
Cr Lobo
Cr Magee
Cr Pilling
Cr Tang
On the basis of the Division the Chairperson declared the Motion CARRIED.
We are utterly speechless at the total shambles that these minutes reveal – from both councillors and from whoever is responsible for the taking and dissemination of these minutes. Again, we’ll go through this in chronological order –
- The motion was moved in open council. Hence IT IS NOT PART OF THE CONFIDENTIAL ITEMS as stated!
- Councillors are legally bound to vote – they CANNOT abstain.
- Esakoff again does not know correct procedure. She cannot call for a Division until the voting has been recorded. No vote is recorded in these minutes.
COMMENT
This is getting worse and worse. We have a situation where the Chair does not seem to know the rules (even though she’s been mayor 3 times) and councillors who also do not know what is legally expected of them. As for the minute taker, perhaps he should be given as birthday present the State version of Standing Orders & Meeting Procedures?
Glen Eira Debates 
October 21, 2011 at 7:13 PM
Poor Maggie. Didn’t have Burke by her side pulling the strings. Slow learner and all that no doubt but only getting $89.000 or thereabouts. Should stick to cutting ribbons. Second time that Forge has tried to abstain – also slow learner. Glen Eira is fast becoming a total laughing stock and Newton is running rings round them all with help from you know who. What a pathetic useless lot.
October 21, 2011 at 7:36 PM
This entire Special Committee is rapidly descending into farce where no one can have any confidence in anything they do or decide. It’s a sad indictment on every single councillor in even agreeing to such procedures and as the blog says, their total ineptitude in following the rules. I’d just like to know why a performance appraisal is being done so late and just before the contract is up for renewal. Most capable managements would have ensured that appraisals are done regularly and well before the deadlines not left to the last minute where more pressure is applied to the decision making of whether to jettison Newton and advertise. But I guess that’s possibly part of his strategy anyway.
October 21, 2011 at 8:28 PM
It’s even worse. The agenda and the minutes don’t gel. This is real politik on the run. Make it up as you go along in the secret assembly meetings.
October 21, 2011 at 8:13 PM
Tick tick tick….only 12 months to go before we have the opportunity to get rid of this dumb useless lot.
October 21, 2011 at 9:56 PM
Oh dear. Looks like the inspector will be have to be called in again.
This may be a more incompetent council than the one dismissed in 2005 – and that’s some achievement.
How can 3 councillors decline to vote? What on earth did they think they were doing? What can be so difficult about deciding to hold a meeting in camera when the subject of the meeting is deemed to be confidential under a number of clauses of the Local Government Act.
Can we blame this on Andrew Newton? Or Paul Burke? Hardly. This council can do it all on their own.
It’s clear from this that the problem lies with council itself. They are obviously so divided that good governance has become impossible.
October 22, 2011 at 8:29 AM
In fact in the end it appears that all 8 councillors present voted in the end. One of the reasons a division is called for is to suss out all the votes. The mayor did exactly what was required and called for a division. There are a couple of councillors that think they can slip under the radar and not be tagged as part of a crook council and improve their chances of being elected next year. At least two of them got there with only a couple of hundred votes. I am guessing they are the ones that failed to put their hands up when called to vote. There hopes getting back are zero. One will need to get new number plates on his car. Knowing that they would be named and possibly dismissed from the council for not voting they soon found their feet for the division. From the description by glen eira it appears to me that the mayor did exactly what a good chairman should in the circumstances.
October 21, 2011 at 10:31 PM
Shambolic, inept and inexcusable says it all …. seceond meeting had to be called to cover the shambolic, inept and inexcusable antics of the previous meeting. Now the second meeting, does the same thing, i.e. silence an elected representative and shut out the community, without the ineptitude (perhaps) but the shambles and inexcusable still remain.
For those who are having difficulty following the ins and outs of this special committee argument, ask yourselves how shambolic, inept and inexcusable fits in with GESAC. The biggest financial investment in the history of Glen Eira ($50m+, and growing) , paid for by ratepayers, is scheduled to open in December, 2011. Ingoring the much publicised basketball shambles (which has serious implications for GESAC’s credibility and financial future), today’s date is 21st October, 2011. Ergo the opening ceremony is within 6 to 10 weeks – opening ceremony invitations shoud have gone out, guest speakers arranged. But what do the residents/ratepayers know of the date .. nada.
Same thing with the re-appointment of the CEO – nada. This is even more significant than the GESAC opening since it involves how GE is to be governed over the next years. Do you want more of the same or would you rather be meaningfully informed and able to form your own opinion and decide your actions
October 21, 2011 at 11:17 PM
Council’s website also contains the agenda for another Special council Meeting – this time for the Annual report. When published, we invite all our readers to offer us their analysis of the glwoing portrait that will undoubtedly be presented.
October 22, 2011 at 12:02 AM
Here’s my assessment of councillor performance for what it’s worth.
1. Esakoff needs to take leave. She is incapable of running meetings fairly and even handedly. Probably still very flustered with the outcome of the Heritage debacle.
2. Hyams needs to reassess his allegiances. He can’t keep backing a dead horse such as Newton and Lipshutz. I would also like him to stop repeating himself, forget that he is a non practising lawyer and start thinking about what he’s there for. His anti community stance is his achilles heel.
3. Pilling is a real quandary. I don’t know if he’s really up to the rough and tumble nor how easily lead astray. A nice bloke, but only concerned with environment and the other odd issue. Has to break away from Lipshutz and his cronies and beg forgiveness for his betrayal of the community with c60. That will not be forgotten.
4. Tang is simply a very verbose article clerk who perhaps has illusions of grandeur under the tutelage of Lipshutz. Not doing his job properly with all the meetings he’s missed. Either he’s a councillor or not. If work commitments interfere so much with his elected role then he must resign – and now.
5. Forge just doesn’t seem to get half of what’s going on. She’s too easily flustered, says a few sentences and then forgets the rest. Has to work a lot harder to get her view across and to remember that she’s involved with SOS. Past voting on several important development applications make me wonder what on earth she’s doing and if she’s forgotten her roots in this movement.
6. Lobo after a promising start has caved in. He doesn’t utter a word anymore. I think this is almost like taking money under false pretences. Either he represents his ward or he doesn’t. Sitting there and getting the cheques is not my idea of a councillor performing as he should.
7. Magee is grandstanding for all he’s worth recently. At least he’s speaking up but it would be good if he spoke up on really important things and not just what’s going on in his ward. He’s got to remember that he’s there to represent the interests of all residents and not just those from Tucker Ward.
8. Lipshutz is the real fly in the ointment. Anecdotal evidence suggests that he doesn’t answer emails and doesn’t answer phone calls and puts people off with his arrogance and dismissive demeanour. His ego has been on display numerous times when he’s launched into unprecedented attacks on residents. Not a good move dear Councillor and it certainly doesn’t win you any friends. For a lawyer the arguments that this blog has documented show that he could use a bit of consistency and certainly logic, also a fair bit of “intellectual honesty” which is his favourite expressions apparently. I would also suggest that he does not go into the business of Heritage Advisor following his recent attempts at this profession. It would also be a great move for him if he stopped being Newton’s little dogsbody because in the end he’ll be left holding the bag for all the atrocious decisions that the council makes.
9. Penhalluriack is another fly in the ointment with a long history that divides some residents and obviously councillors. I think that his heart is in the right place and he’s trying his best. His problem is that he doesn’t know how to play the game and comes a cropper time and time again. But he does make things interesting at least. One never knows what to expect from him.
This leaves all of them with plenty of room for improvement. John writes the clock is ticking. I think that time has definitely run out for the whole lot.
October 22, 2011 at 7:38 AM
Three Councillors wanted to abstain from voting which gives a good indication of their knowledge of legalities – Councillor’s must vote yay or nay, there is no provision for abstaining.
So aside from unawareness of the law, we also have a dislay of weakness. The abstaining option should only come into play if a representative doesn’t know enough on the subject (= admitting to not doing the homework) or doesn’t want the way they voted recorded in the minutes ( = lack of integrity).
Three wanted to abstain – none could and only one voted against the motion. What does that further tell you about the character of the Council?
October 22, 2011 at 10:08 AM
On calling for a division. In Parliament a division is called for when the speaker (chair) is uncertain of the result. In this case the mayor was uncertain of the result. By calling for a division she saved Councillors from their own stupidity. I would say that is better leadership than resorting to warning the councillors that failed to indicate their vote that they were liable to be tossed off the council and banned from standing for future councils for 4 years. I think some of your comments are becoming very one sided. How about a bit of balance.
October 22, 2011 at 11:15 AM
Standing Orders of Parliament state: “A question that is put by the Chair in the House must be resolved on the majority of voices ‘aye’ or ‘no’. The Chair must state whether the ayes or the noes have it and, if a member challenges the Chair’s opinion, the question must be decided by a division”.
Divisions are therefore held to document and record THE VOTE ALREADY TAKEN. It is not a question of “uncertainty” but of challenging the chairs decision on the vote. Secondly members call for Divisions and NOT chairs.
October 22, 2011 at 12:26 PM
All very well to have the rule book out but common sense is a pretty good fall back. In all many areas of our society rules are overlooked for the sake of expediency. Right or wrong that is what happens. In this case I am sure the mayor knew what was happening and what was possible. She took a reasonable course of action. As I said saved some Councillors from themselves. I am sure you are aware of the consequences from refusing to vote. Very serious for the whole Council. Good leadership.
October 22, 2011 at 1:22 PM
The point we have made several times is that rules as interpreted and enacted by this council are very “flexible”. When it is “convenient” the rule of law applies – at other times, the “rules” become exceedingly malleable.
We have also received the following email and the request to put this up as a comment:
“The (open) committee meeting tried to vote to close the meeting to the public. Hyams and Lipshutz moved to ‘close the meeting to members of the public’. The Minutes record that no formal vote on this motion was taken by the meeting. The Minutes further record that there was no declaration of any vote on the motion, by Esakoff.
The meeting then purportedly proceeded to a Division. But no member of the meeting called for a Division. Esakoff did not move or ask the meeting for a division, she simply proceeded without lawful authority. Thus, according to Council’s own Local law, the the division was invalid, not lawful.
Which leads us to an interesting situation. (1) There was no formal (ie. legal) vote taken, and (2) The was no formal (ie. legal) division called for, or taken. This means the meeting continued in public, without moving into Confidential Business.
Which means the remainder of the meeting was still lawfully open to the public. Hence, the Minutes when published are required by law, to be a complete and accurate record of the meeting. The complete Minutes must be available for public perusal”.
October 22, 2011 at 4:21 PM
Common sense does not enter into any of this. When laws are used to silence people as this mayor has done numerous times of late, then everyone has the right to question how fair she’s being and under whose orders she’s acting. She’s gone backwards and forwards through the agenda items when no motion is on the floor, pushed through urgent business without attempting a vote nor explaining why it’s urgent business and gagging Penhalluriack either in council meetings without explaining her reasons as she’s required to by the local law, or then using the law to justify why she shut him up at the october 4th committee meeting. You just can’t have it all your way. Either the laws are there to be obeyed all the time or they aren’t. The past couple of months have been shocking in the way that she and many councillors have succeeded in trampling over the rights of others and the laws that govern them all.
October 23, 2011 at 9:27 PM
Let me clarify for you what happened at the meeting. After the motion was twice put and three councillors declined to vote, the motion was again put and voted on by all councillors, and only once that had happened was a division called for. The proper procedure was followed.
The way it was minuted was the way resolutions are minuted whenever a division is called for. When I asked about that previously, I was informed that it was because, in some councils other than Glen Eira, a motion had been put and a result recorded, but when a division was called for, the vote went differently. For example, the minutes may have shown the motion to be carried, but the division showed it to be defeated. It was therefore felt it was safer that, when a division was called, only the results of the division be recorded.
As you have said, a division may only be called once a valid vote has been held, so the assumption of any fair minded person reading the minutes would be that the vote had first been held. You might save yourselves a lot of needless agitation if you ask what happened rather than leaping to the worst possible conclusion.
October 23, 2011 at 11:35 PM
Dear Cr. Hyams,
thank you for your comment. You claim that “correct procedure” was followed in relation to the voting. But was it followed in relation to the recording of the vote in the minutes? Our understanding is that minutes MUST be an accurate and true record of what occurred. In fact, the Local Government Act states at Section 93.6 (a) – “The minutes of a meeting of the Council or a special committee must- (a) contain details of the proceedings and resolutions made”. A Division is NOT a resolution. It follows a resolution.
You also state that in Glen Eira it is not common practise to record the vote – only the Division because it is “safer”. Safer for whom? Councillors who do not wish to be embarrassed by their rapid change of heart and that this is recorded? Since you have often been so exemplary in your defense of the letter of the law, perhaps this is a perfect example for you and your colleagues to insist that it also occurs in such instances?
We also note that you have not addressed the other points made in the post.
October 24, 2011 at 12:56 PM
Questions of Fact, and of Fiction
First, Questions of Fact. We must be grateful for the Deputy Mayor, Jamie Hyams, for his candid response. Regrettably, both his description of events, and the official Minutes of the meeting disagree. According to the minutes, after the vote was ‘called for’ there was no declaration of the result, hence no vote taken. Remarkably, no councillor raised a point of order! Worse, since no vote result was ever declared by the Chair, Mayor Esakoff has contravened Councils own Local Law (s. 236) which demands a declaration. It says specifically, ‘The Chairperson must declare a result’. This was not done, with the result that the Mayor broke her Council’s own Local Law.
Confusingly, Jamie Hyams claims that there were votes taken three times, the Minutes say twice. Hyams says, ‘the motion was twice taken…the motion was then put again, and voted on by all councillors… (then) a division was called for’. The official (confirmed) minutes contradict this. The official minutes state that only two votes were taken, then a division. This disagreement about what really happened splits the council. We have the Deputy Mayor, Jamie Hyams, is disputing the official version. Clearly, as a matter of urgency, Councillors at the next Council meeting, should resolve this matter, and put the record straight.
Second, Questions of Fiction
Jamie Hyams says he asked about the way resolutions are minuted, and ‘was informed’ that it was safer to record only the results of a division. Who informed you, Cr Hyams? This is important, because it appears to have been advice to incorrectly minute a meeting, which is illegal. Also, we ask, what did Hyams’ anonymous advisor mean by ‘safer’? The minutes are not required by law to be ‘safer’, but to be a true and accurate record of the meeting. They are not to be just a set of doctored ‘safe’ minutes. If the Deputy Mayor didn’t, or still doesn’t, know meeting law, he should consult a lawyer (perhaps Cr Tang, who is a lawyer). He should not listen to poppycock from unknown sources. The lame excuse he seems to offer, that ‘other councils do it’ is no defense and would not hold up in a real court of law.
So, what actually is THE LAW about divisions and minutes? First, the minutes must be accurate. If they are not accurate Councils own Local Law expects them to be corrected. The Local Law says ‘there is no discussion allowed on the minutes, EXCEPT ’as to their accuracy’. (s.233).
And what of Divisions? How sloppy can the minutes be when reporting divisions? Hyams purports that a ‘valid vote is what a fair-minded person’ would have assumed happened at the meeting. Not so Councillor. That is legalistic fiction. The LAW is perfectly clear, even if Councils own Law and meeting procedures are not. When in doubt, council meeting procedure follows that of Parliament, whose Standing Orders on Divisions (s 162) states that AFTER the vote has been resolved, ‘if a member challenges the Chair’s opinion, the question must be decided by a division’.
Perfectly clear, but NOT done in Glen Eira. The Minutes say that “Cr Esakoff called for a division…’ This is going from the sublime to the ridiculous. Supposedly Mayor Esakoff was challenging her own decision, made just seconds earlier.
Clearly the whole circus of Glen Eira is just nuts.
October 24, 2011 at 3:18 PM
Some good points made here Circus Watcher. You’ve also brought up the question of the “anonymous” person who appears to have incredible power in this council. Hyams says “it was therefore felt” – by whom and when? I’d also like to know whether this decision to change the minuting process was a result of a council decision or was it a unilateral decision by some administrators? Further, what changes were consequently made to the local law, or were they even made? Again, Hyams words lead us into what has been called “rule by nobody” except that councillors are legally accountable. They accept the minutes so they had better make sure that they’re accurate. Comprehensiveness is of course another bone of contention with this council. I’ll leave that to another time.