Tonight’s Council Meeting descended from a circus into a farce. We wish to point out the following:
- The successful obstructionism of Hyams, Tang, Esakoff and Lipshutz
- The incredible switch of voting within 5 minutes by Lobo – but only AFTER LIPSHUTZ WHISPERED IN HIS EAR AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE FIRST VOTE!
- The not so subtle temper tantrum by Newton
If ever any evidence was required of a divided and dysfunctional council then tonight’s meeting illustrated this fully. We apologise for the length of this post. Our reports on other items will follow in the next day or so.
REQUEST FOR REPORT
PENHALLURIACK: The request wanted a report ‘detailing why the following council resolutions…have not been tabled in Council …..(and incorporated into the minutes as ) Public Record Documents’.Hyams interrupted asking which motions. Penhalluriack started to read out the May 2011 resolution about the mulch facility relocation. Again Hyams interrupted with a ‘point of order’ and said that ‘he needs to itemise the report….’
ESAKOFF: ‘Correct. Uphold’. Told Penhalluriack that he could speak to the motion once there was a seconder.
PENHALLURIACK: Read out 19 resolutions dating back to 2006 and finished with the May 2011 re the mulch facility. Forge seconded. Penhalluriack quoted the Newton statement that requests for reports are tabled usually at the next council meeting. Penhalluriack then cited the Local government act and that the ceo must provide council with ‘timely advice’…’that’s why I’m asking for a report at the next council meeting detailing (why the read out resolutions haven’t) ‘been tabled in council….and officially recorded in the minutes as Public Record documents.
FORGE: ‘I’ve got nothing more to add”
HYAMS: Wanted to ask Penhalluriack ‘a couple of questions’….(queried Penhalluriacks ‘time’ for when he wanted the report) ‘to come back’.
PENHALLURIACK: ‘At the next council meeting’
HYAMS: Asked if it was ‘reasonable’ to give officers longer than this given the ‘large number of reports’ that Penhalluriack had read out? Said he’d put this as an amendment if necessary.
PENHALLURIACK: Said he could change the wording to ‘spread over two council meetings’. He accepted Hyams’ recommendation’
HYAMS: ‘did you actually go through all the agendas’…’and check that those reports had not come back?’
PENHALLURIACK: ‘No I didn’t’….’I can assure you that none of those reports has come back’
HYAMS: ‘how are you so sure about that Cr Penhalluriack?’
ESAKOFF: ‘would you like to qualify that answer?’ Penhalluriack asked what she meant and then said ‘to the best of my knowledge’. Esakoff then stated that Penhalluriack had said that ‘none of them had come back’. Penhalluriack then repeated that this was the case ‘to the best of’ his knowledge’.
HYAMS: Asked Newton ‘to the best of your knowledge have any of those reports come back?’
NEWTON: ‘the vast majority of these’…. (were reports) ‘which councillors at the time received…..the accusation that these matters have not been addressed in writing….is false’.
PENHALLURIACK: ‘it was not an accusation…
TANG: interupted with a point of order that Penhalluriack was speaking to the motion
LIPSHUTZ: Another question for Penhalluriack. asked that since he hadn’t gone through the reports ‘how is it that you can say that ‘you can assure council’ that they haven’t been seen to.
PENHALLURIACK: ‘I said to the best of my knowledge’
LIPSHUTZ: ‘what is your knowledge that they have not been submitted?’
PENHALLURIACK: ‘I have been through many of them myself, and friends have been through them (and checked them as best we can)….’and if I’m wrong and they have been reported to Council then I’m happy for that report to come back to the next council meeting’. Repeated that he wasn’t claiming that they hadn’t been reported in Good Governance Guide….’what I’m simply saying is that they should be reported back to council….so they go onto the record as an official document’.
PILLING: Said that he didn’t think that Penhalluriack was making ‘accusations’ and that he was asking for ‘clarification’…’there may well be good reasons why some reports haven’t (been tabled)…I do take issue with our CEO (in using the word accusations since he didn’t think they were) and ‘I’ll ask him to withdraw’ that word.
NEWTON picked up the microphone to respond and then almost hurled it aside. He remained silent.
MAGEE: Wanted to confirm that the report on the tennis courts at Mackie reserve ‘was provided’ but he didn’t know ‘whether it was provided to council’ but was ‘certainly provided to me and through that I raised a number of issues’ that he took to councillor group’…I don’t know if that was tabled at council meeting….(remembered a detailed 7 or 8 page report)…..(said that this created some confusion in the community and therefore believes) ‘that this didn’t come to a council meeting only a briefing’…’and maybe that’s part of what Cr Penhalluriack is alluding to’….’maybe they’re not all coming to council meetings….
TANG: Point of order again about Pilling’s request for Newton to withdraw a statement about ‘accusations’ – ‘I don’t see any grounds upon which that request can be made’
ESAKOFF: ‘bear with me’ as she went to the local law to ‘check’ whether Tang was right. Eventually ‘I do uphold that point of order…I don’t see any grounds either’ Asked Pilling to withdraw that ‘question’ (request)
PILLING: ‘the CEO is at liberty to agree to that or not’
ESAKOFF: ‘I don’t see any grounds for that to be requested’ Checked with Burke. ‘There is no provision for that’. …ask you to withdraw’. Pilling withdrew.
LIPSHUTZ: Said that Penhalluriack had changed his original motion from ‘not prepared’ to ‘not produced in council’ ….that’s a different issue…..’I have seen reports in relation to matters that I have asked for….there was an implied accusation to begin with but the ground shifted…(so if Penhalluriack is asking why they weren’t submitted to council then that’s different to their ‘not being prepared at all’.
TANG: asked Penhalluriack to re-read the request for report.
PENHALLURIACK: re-read the motion…’I don’t believe there is any accusation in that request, certainly none intended’.
TANG: wanted two meetings to ‘make it a little clearer’ for when the reports should come back…..(asking why they weren’t reported back to council is a) ‘false assertion, the assertion that they weren’t reported to a public council meeting….my recollection is that some of those reports were reported to an ordinary council meetings….(he could support the motion on two grounds that this first bit is a question) ‘what happened to those requests and whether they were reported in ordinary council meetings’…. second part involved time line)….’right that council received an answer to that sort of question…..(there are other requests for reports from tonight so Tang would be ‘comfortable’ if Penhalluriack’s request took a ‘little while longer’….’if it’s an assertion that those reports weren’t tabled’ (he couldn’t support the motion)
ESAKOFF: asked Burke’ does a document need to be in the council agenda to be a public record?’
BURKE: ‘No it doesn’t….it is mischievous to suggest that documents aren’t public records if they haven’t been on the agenda’
ESAKOFF: Agreed with Tang…’a request for a report as to why, if any, and which….didn’t come to a council agenda (and better timeline) would assist in getting that to us….my recollection…is that we have seen many reports on them, maybe not on council agendas but certainly (that we’ve got at assembly)….’on that basis I can’t support this particular request’.
HYAMS: Agreed with Esakoff and Tang ‘ would be comfortable if the request for a report was rephrased’ …’what eventuated from the following requests’….and (increase timeline). Asked Penahalluriack to ‘consider rewording’
PENHALLURIACK: ‘Wording says detailing why….many of these may well have been published in the green guide….I don’t know. It will not be very difficult….(for officers to hunt up the details since they have all the records at their disposal via computers)….’all I need to know is where they were published’….(Acknowledged that Burke is right but that since these reports have been recorded as requests in the minutes of Council Meetings) ‘therefore they should be in the minutes’ (as a ‘chain of command’)….’this has now been brought to a satisfactory conclusion’….’all I’m asking is why council resolutions have not been tabled’…to me this is innocuous….I’m happy to say the next 2 council meetings as well…..it should not be difficult.
ESAKOFF PUT THE MOTION: IN FAVOUR – Penhalluriack, Magee, Forge, Pilling AND LOBO. Against – Lipshutz, Hyams, Tang, Esakoff.
TANG: ‘point of clarification’….’i DON’T BELIEVE THERE IS A MOTION ON THE TABLE’…..(Argued that by Penhalluriack ‘clarifying his motion’ to 3 or 6 weeks, …..not sure what the motion is)
ESAKOFF: asked Penhalluriack to clarify.
PENHALLURIACK: read out with the words ‘next two council meetings’ ‘detailing why the following council resolutions….have not been tabled in Council…..
LIPSHUTZ: since the motions reads ‘two council meetings’ there’s confusion about whether the reports should come back in two separate but consecutive meetings
ESAKOFF: ‘are you adjusting’ that to Penhalluriack?
PENHALLURIACK: ‘I’m attempting to Madam Mayor, yes’! Redread this as asking for a report ‘in two council meetings time’. Then changed again to insert date – 13th December.
TANG: interrupted again. ‘I don’t think I’ve been clear….he keeps changing…he should just put what he said first time….(Hyams didn’t move an amendment; Penhalluriack doesn’t need to change the wording; Penhalluriack just needs to read out what he said the first time….’you can’t change the motion after everyone’s spoken to it and then summed up’….
ESAKOFF: asked Penhalluriack to repeat the motion that he first read out ‘without changes’
PENHALLURIACK; read out original motion again.
ESAKOFF PUT THE MOTION: In favour – Penhalluriack, Magee, Forge, Pilling. Against – THIS TIME LOBO, Lipshutz, Tang, Esakoff, Hyams
MOTION LOST. PENHALLURIACK CALLED FOR A DIVISION
Glen Eira Debates 
November 3, 2011 at 2:26 AM
If this is a true account of the council affairs tonight it is absolutely staggering. Voting in the real issue only of whether reports have been included in official minutes seems to have been the subject of the matter.
To a simple person it would seeem that many of them had been already been expertly prepared by the competent staff and had not reached the minute status. It would wwwm an easy matter if they had already been completed as the ceo stated to find them in a meeting or too and if by chance a few were not complete then Cr Penhaluriack was more than happy to wait for two meetings for them. Now the solution for the nine adult people in the chamber all acting on behalf of condtuents was to throw it out altogether. It would seem senseless and on wonders what there was to hide.
I suppose Crs. HYAMS AND lIPSHUTZ SPOKE ATR LENGTH ON THE DEAD ISSUE OF THE vcaaaaat DECISIONS GONE BY AND NATURALLY EVERY WORD THEY UTTERED IN THE USUAL BOMBASTIC MANNER WOULD BE IN THE MINUTES..
November 3, 2011 at 8:38 AM
They should sell tickets. Make good reality tv.
November 3, 2011 at 9:35 AM
To call this circus to farce is certainly correct. As for the Lobo and Lipshutz interchange (less than a second) it is a disgrace and speaks volumes of the character of both men.
This Council is dysfunctional – if anyone needed further evidence of this the above proves it beyond doubt. Glen Eira and it’s residents deserve better than this.
November 3, 2011 at 10:04 AM
Frank needs to immediately resign from Council and leave our Town Hall. He is a complete fool.To publically embarrass the CEO at a Council meeting without checking his facts (he obviously relied on your factually incorrect blog) shows how unsuited Frank is to Public Office. Frank you are a disgrace. A dangerous one at that. Resign Frank.
November 3, 2011 at 1:32 PM
How’s business in the toy shop Noel?
November 3, 2011 at 7:07 PM
If Newton is “embarrassed” then he has no one else to blame except himself. He is in charge of officers reports and officers themselves. He in fact should be embarrassed – not by the question but by his failure to follow through on council resolutions and to see to it that these reports (if they ever existed) were submitted back to a full council meeting and not to a select few, and certainly not in the secret meetings that constitute assemblies. In regard to Penhalluriack I think he deserves a medal for highlighting the continual abuses of power that go on in this council and for wanting answers as to why they occur.
November 3, 2011 at 10:31 AM
The report on what happened last night confirms fully the unholy alliances that have been forged between the gang and now Lobo. I am becoming incredibly angry at the manipulation and outright hypocrisy of these individuals. Penhalluriack is really a babe in the woods when it comes to the slimy tactics of Tang, Lipshutz and Hyams and it’s all endorsed by Esakoff. I want to outline my reactions to this post in detail –
1. The continual interruptions by the gang should have never been allowed. It became an inquisition. Penhalluriack’s motion was clearly stated and seconded. He accepted the suggested changes which has often been done previously. To then have Tang claiming that there is no motion on the floor – after a vote has been taken – is unheard of.
2. The admissions by Magee and others that reports may not have ended up being submitted to formal council meetings, and that he alone had received a report shows again the secrecy that operates at Glen Eira. If the requested reports did show up at assembly meetings only, then some kind of decision must have been made to not proceed any further with these reports. The assemblies can’t decide such things. That is illegal.
3. Newton obviously chose his words very carefully and ignored the motion altogether. Whether or not councillors got anything in writing is not the point of Penhalluriack’s motion. If some of them got reports and others didn’t then we’ve got a case of the annointed few. I seem to remember the Municipal Inspector saying something about all councillors should all get the same information. He also didn’t say that the reports came back to a full council meeting. That was Penhalluriack’s point. If a resolution is passed then why aren’t the reports tabled at council meetings?
4. I’m also appalled at Esakoff’s rulings. A vote was taken and won. That should have been the end of the debate.
5. Burke’s comments are also questionable. As an officer he has no authority to make comments such as “mischievious”. His role is to sit there and assist in the protocols of meetings and not to editorialise and cast slurs on councillors.
6. Pilling deserves a few ticks for at least trying to be peacemaker. Newton’s reaction in my mind tells us exactly what kind of individual he is – obviously unable to accept any kind of correction at all. How childish and churlish.
The tragedy of last night, and I do think it’s a tragedy, is that governance is absolutely dead at Glen Eira. What’s we’ve got is a group who control everything in their own interests and will stoop to the lowest level to achieve their goals. Lobo is the latest convert. For someone who keeps mum and doesn’t utter a word his presence is an insult to all residents.
November 3, 2011 at 10:50 AM
The cheap point scoring and set ups are unbelievable. I didn’t vote for damn lawyers with their lousy tricks. I voted for people to listen and to represent my interests.
November 3, 2011 at 11:59 AM
I agree with Peter Jenkins. Too many schmaltzy lawyers on council. Last night with their lousy tricks of muddying the waters, false points of order, its now just the pits. On top of that, a CEO who refuses to answer a simple question put to him by a councillor, a Mayor who fails to direct the staff to answer councillor questions, and string-pulling by one councillor to get another councillor to change his vote.
Clearly the time has come for the Minister to step in and sack the whole lot of them. The last time in 2005 the Minister only sacked the councillors, he should have replaced the senior administration as well. Remember, the Commissioners a decade or so before that successfully replaced almost all the senior administration from the old Caulfield days. So it can be done.
Bring it on, I say..
November 3, 2011 at 12:22 PM
The lack of reports is unravelling the back room deal done by the Camden mob and there so called independents that run in the other wards to bolster that vote.
Newton actions just support what we all know, he has failed as the CEO of Glen Eira its it is time for his to admit his failings and leave.
November 3, 2011 at 1:20 PM
Is it my imagination, we it comes to protecting the CEO and shinning light on the back room deal, the 4 (MODERATORS: word deleted) councilors always vote together to close down the debate, so who is hiding what for the public gaze. Or is this there way of doing business.
November 3, 2011 at 2:47 PM
The stuff ups here are unbelievable. Esakoff is nothing more than a stooge and has absolutely no idea. A motion was voted on. It won. It wasn’t out of order, nor decalred invalid, nor rescinded. It therefore must stand. The whole thing is illegal but the minutes won’t show anything I bet.
November 3, 2011 at 3:23 PM
3 swarmy lawyers concocting a plot to save the neck of Newton. Esakoff lends a helping hand in this charade of openness and transparency. Farce is correct, but I’d add to this underhanded tactics and collusion. This performance comes straight from the sewers.
November 3, 2011 at 4:20 PM
When ya don’t wanna answer a question cos it’ll put ya in the poo, then you attack. That’s Newton’s approach. Questions become “accusations” and he gets on his bloody high horse and the poor bugger is offended that Pilling wants him to retract something. Never question god he’s saying. What a pathetic performance from someone in charge of multi millions. Jesus, he can’t cop a legit question about reports not showing up where they’re supposed to without spittin the dummy. If ya can’t stand the heat then get out of the bloody kitchen I say.
November 3, 2011 at 5:31 PM
Lobo’s performance on this is highly questionable. It doesn’t make sense that in the space of a few minutes someone can change their mind like he did. You’ve got to wonder what it was the Lipshutz said into his ear. What sweet nothings did he mumble? And what hold has he got over Lobo? This man is simply taking up space but he becomes an important cog in the Newton/Lipshutz machine because he’s got a vote. I hope that Lobo just remembers what he said when he first got in and that he’s there to work for the community and not the vested interests that are showing up week after week on this council. He’s got to put his vote where his mouth once was otherwise he should resign immediately.
November 3, 2011 at 6:02 PM
The conduct of Council meetings is covered by LGA S91(1) and Council’s Local Law 2009 Divison 3. In particular, LL S234 deals with the procedure for moving a motion or amendments & conduct of debate. If the actual meeting was conducted as described above then it is in breach of its own Local Law. No surprises there, given the lack of record of the first attempt at a Special Committee re CEO.
I have read through S234 several times now. It appears to say “(1) The mover must state the motion” It doesn’t say with interruptions. Several Councillors didn’t like the motion it appears, although its doubtful they listened to it. If it is true that Cr Hyams raised a point of order, then as per S236(1) “the Chairperson is the final arbiter of all points of order”. Thats a reminder to us all the care that needs to be taken when choosing somebody to act in that role.
However 236(2) makes clear “The Chairperson must give reasons for the decision”. Even more importantly, 236(3) lists the grounds on which a point of order may be taken. There are 5 of them. None indicate that a report must be itemised. Margaret upheld the point of order, so I’m curious which of the 5 grounds she gave, and which of the 5 grounds Jamie believed applied.
If other Councillors don’t like the motion they can speak against it (assuming the Chairperson remembers), or move an amendment. This is spelt out in the meeting procedure.
There are multiple things wrong about the conduct as described, and not just the abuse of the Point of Order power. There’s the general interruptions, forbidden under LL, a widespread lack of respect held for each other, and Paul Burke’s unhelpful, possibly defamatory, contribution. Defamatory comments are *never* acceptable, and are grounds for a point of order as per S236(3)(b). I think it perfectly acceptable to ask officers for reasons for actions taken, but not acceptable to attribute malice or mischief as the reasons for asking. Somebody moving a motion does need to be careful about the drafting of their request, and I’ll have to wait until the Minutes are published to find out what the controversial text actually says. Again, assuming the Minutes are accurate that is.
Strident Anonymous appears to believe none of this matters. Well I disagree. Its necessary for the healthy functioning of our democracy. Public access to officer reports is also very necessary, which I assume is the motivation behind the original motion. There’s simply too much secrecy going on at present to be healthy, at least for the vast majority of us who aren’t the beneficiaries of such secrecy.
I have previously drawn a parallel between advice provided by WorkSafe concerning bullying at work and the behaviour of some of our current councillors. This behaviour appears now to have been extended to the abuse of meeting procedures to silence people that hold views individual councillors disagree with. Well there is a maxim or ethical code so powerful, so important, its been given the name The Golden Rule. “One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself”.
November 3, 2011 at 6:31 PM
Reprobate’s comments like always are spot on. It’s too easy to call Esakoff a stooge and incompetent (both of which are probably very true in my view) but that skims over what I am convinced is going on with this gang of councillors and their architect in Newton. Any objective observer would have to say that the events of the past few council meetings have been planned meticulously beforehand. They have been engineered to firstly silence Penhalluriack; secondly to exclude him from all decision making issues on Newton, and then to have the numbers to ram things through as they see fit. This isn’t democracy. It’s immoral and unethical if not fully illegal.
For a CEO to respond in the way Newton has is unacceptable. Burke’s remarks are similarly objectionable. There is no consistency in Esakoff’s rulings and no adherence to the Local Law as Reprobate suggests. It’s all geared towards the ultimate objective of silencing any hint of criticism, fair questioning, and ensuring that Newton is reappointed. I, like many others, can only remain curious as to what the pay off is for Lipshutz, Hyams, Tang, and Esakoff because there surely must be some payoff. No-one sells their soul in the way that these individuals have for nothing.
November 3, 2011 at 9:36 PM
Very insightful.
November 3, 2011 at 8:17 PM
The Glen Huntly rd reservoir is worth a conservative 4 million with an expected bill of 4 to 5,000,000 to get it back to street level-unimproved.
That makes the site worth near 10.000,000.
Some say this is to high a price to pay to let residents just walk around on it and enjoy.
Who get to use of this land and for what purpose maybe well a very hansom pay-off.
November 3, 2011 at 10:38 PM
Your Joking. Council sold it;s nearby depot almost 10 years ago for close to $10m if you include remediation costs. If this site is not worth more than $20m then Frank will be in like Flyn.
November 4, 2011 at 1:34 AM
It would seem that attending GEC Meetings would not be unlike the the courts of HItler, Stalin, Lenin and Franco’s Trials where one point of view was the only one to be expressed. Historical records are and were banished or not required. Some people feel as if they are watching people being run over by trains every time they attend these mock democratic council meetings where due to intense suppression/exclusion by “the powers that be” then others are intimidated just as in all autocracies such as those estblished by all the dictators we have knowledge of during recent history.
Oh incidentally, the fact that copies of the Glen Eira News are unavaiilable after six months and probably these requested reports would indicate that they did not surface for publication in the minutes because there was something to hide!
Advertise the job! There are vacancies as close as Stonnington and Booroondara where he could apply if we would allow him to go.
November 4, 2011 at 12:35 PM
Heard that Newton has been seen driving around Hawthorn at the weekend.
November 4, 2011 at 1:35 PM
Although the Gang of 4 would totally detest Hitler, they seem to like fascist methods, especial when it works for them.