We have to again query the interpretations of Council’s meeting procedures as evidenced in last Wednesday’s Council Meeting. Before we begin, this extract from the Port Phillip Local Law is very pertinent:
Where a situation has not been provided for in this Local Law, the Council or special committee may decide the matter by resolution.
In Glen Eira the exact reverse happens time and time again. The argument invariably goes that if something is NOT INCLUDED in the Local Law Meeting Procedures, then it is NOT PERMITTED. Nothing could be further from the truth!
The failure to include any mention of rescission, dissent, and numerous other democratic protocols in our rules and regulations does not mean that they are illegal or are incapable of being exercised during a council meeting. Last council meeting saw how such omissions were used to rule against an attempt to dissent from the chair by Penhalluriack. During his ‘right of reply’ (which we’ve posted earlier) Penhalluriack was ruled out of order by Esakoff on the grounds that his statements were irrelevant. The sequence of events went like this:
ESAKOFF: Following Hyams interjection about relevance Esakoff stated “I uphold that point of order”. She asked Penhalluriack to take his seat.
PENHALLURIACK:”I ask you to test your resolution by a vote of council”
ESAKOFF: “I’m sorry”? (Said in a very quizzical tone of voice)”No that’s my ruling”….
PENHALLURIACK: Asked that the ruling be ‘tested’ by council
ESAKOFF: Stated that Penhalluriack had already ‘corrected the record’ and ‘I think that’s been done sufficiently”
PENHALLURIACK: Said that all organisations have the ability to challenge rulings of chairpersons. “I am now challenging the chair”
ESAKOFF: “That is my ruling”
We note:
- Esakoff’s ruling is totally distinct from the right of a councillor to challenge such a ruling
- The failure to include such provision in the local law DOES NOT MEAN that the ability to dissent from the chair is not available. Absence of something is not denial.
- Penhalluriack admittedly needed to present a formal motion. However his intent was clear, legal, and should have been acted upon by Esakoff.
By way of contrast we include below the relevant sections from both the Kingston and Bayside Meeting Procedures.
Dissent From Chair’s Ruling
(1) A Councillor may move that the meeting disagree with the Chair’s ruling on a point of order, by moving:
“That the Chair’s ruling [setting out that ruling or part of that ruling] be dissented from”.
(2) When a motion in accordance with this clause is moved and seconded:
(a) the Chair must leave the chair and any Deputy Mayor must chair the meeting; or if there is no Deputy Mayor
(b) the Chair must leave the chair after the meeting has elected a temporary Chair.
(3) The Deputy Mayor or the temporary Chair must invite the mover to state the reasons for his or her dissent and the Chair may
then reply.
(4) The Deputy Mayor or the temporary Chair must put the motion in the following form:
“That the Chair’s ruling be dissented from.”
(5) If the vote is in the negative, the Chair resumes the chair and the meeting proceeds.
(6) If the vote is in the affirmative, the Chair must then resume the chair, reverse or vary (as the case may be) his or her
previous ruling and proceed.
(7) The defeat of the Chair’s ruling is in no way a motion of censure or nonconfidence in the Chair, and should not be so regarded by the meeting.
KINGSTON
Dissenting from the Chairperson’s Ruling
36. (1) When the Chairperson makes a ruling during a meeting a member may move a motion to the effect that the meeting dissent from the Chairperson’s ruling.
(2) When a motion of dissent is moved and is seconded the following procedures must be followed:
(a) the Chairperson asks the mover, then the seconder, to speak to their motion and the matter is then further debated as required. The matter is put to the vote and the Chairperson announces the result; and
(b) the Chairperson is bound by the result of the motion of dissent – if it is passed then his or her previous ruling is changed so that it conforms to the motion of dissent, if it is defeated then his or her previous ruling stands.
(3) The defeat of the Chairperson’s ruling is not a vote of no-confidence in the Chairperson and must not be so regarded by the meeting.
Finally, mention should also be made of the fact that Esakoff again declared that she has ‘Urgent Business’ that needs to go in camera. The relevant sections of the Act were cited, BUT NO MOTION PUT OR PASSED. Hyams only at the close of the meeting corrected this little error and a motion was belatedly put and passed.
Glen Eira Debates 
November 7, 2011 at 7:30 PM
What else can ya expect when Lipshutz is chair of the local laws committee that only meets officially once in a blue moon. Kinda funny to is that the only jokers to keep jumping up with points of order are Lipshutz, Hyams and Tang. Come on Frank – stick it to em. Interrupt, threaten, use all their dirty tactics to your advantage.
November 7, 2011 at 10:12 PM
Every aspect of the meeting regulations are designed with two objectives in mind – secrecy and short circuiting any criticism. The Bayside and Kingston laws show that in other normal organisations the provision for potential criticism and allowing councillors to express a point of view is regarded as essential. In Glen Eira the opposite happens. Everything is to be kept under wraps and out of the public eye. When someone has the temerity to raise an issue it is immediately stomped on with devious tactics endorsed by these procedures. All this succeeds in doing is providing a hotbed for private deals, and unholy alliances.
November 7, 2011 at 10:49 PM
Council business wasn’t always this way in Glen Eira.
This abuse of power and position has only happened since Glen Eira has an abusive click of pseudosecular lawyers and there similar minded off-siders holding power.
If that’s not bad enough in its self, it has coincided with a CEO that is very anti community.
With these two powers in force, it’s not hard to see why we have problems such as we have.
Lets hope there is a light at the end of the tunnel before real community friction sets in.
November 7, 2011 at 10:54 PM
Penhalluriack would do much better if he could be bothered to learn something about meeting procedure. Come on Frank, it really isn’t that difficult.
Repeat this line – “I move a motion of dissent from the Chair’s ruling”. See – not that hard is it? But of course you’ll need a seconder. That might be a bit more difficult.
November 8, 2011 at 9:31 AM
The Obergruppenführer (mayor or chairperson) under our Local Law “may require motions to be put in writing”. If the intention is to silence somebody in Council meetings by any means, whether or not they’re legal or ethical, it can be done.
November 8, 2011 at 9:46 AM
Where were all those little helpers here? Surprise, surprise not one of them offered to “assist” Penhalluriack and offer some appropriate wording. Since they’re such experts in procedures their silence here is a dead give away as to their tactics. Collegiality only extends to the gang and to hell with anyone who might challenge this dominance.
November 7, 2011 at 11:25 PM
Glen Huntly in retrospect, its easy, in real maybe not that easy, but your advise is good
November 8, 2011 at 9:08 AM
As we know from a recent blog Frank has real problems with checking facts and dotting his i’s.
November 8, 2011 at 10:04 AM
Reprobate the chair may be a Richard Craniam but to refer to her as a Nazi is not on. Take it back and apologise.
November 8, 2011 at 11:59 AM
A Chairy Tale
Sadly, yet another stuff up by Chairperson Margaret. She is a tryer, still there. battling away, after all these years. At council meetings she is the rose between two thorns. (Andrew and Paul). But who ever heard of an effective Chair with just two legs?
When Frank stuffed up his motion it was the DUTY of the Chairperson to help him out. All councillors – even, God forbid, Mr. Ego Himself, (Cr Tang) stuff up occasionally, That is when the chairperson is supposed to assist the meeting, to promote debate and proper decision making. Whenever there is a problem with the wording of a motion, the Chair and other councillors should help out. The sneering attacks by the lawyer types simply showed their failures and neglect of duty. Thank heavens none of them are Barristers or Judges. They can’t even run a humble suburban council meeting according to law..