The minutes of November 2nd have finally made an appearance. To be frank, we are appalled at what can only be a deliberate attempt to distort the events of that evening. The result is anything but a true and accurate representation of what occurred. We highlight the following:
- Esakoff’s statement that she has “urgent business” and then the belated Hyams’ motion does not appear. The minutes record NO URGENT BUSINESS
- Penhalluriack’s ‘request for a report’ is again not his original (short motion) but now a long, and UNPUNCTUATED account. This is not the first time that such tactics have been employed.
- Penhalluriack’s ‘Right of Reply’ does not exist. Regardless of whether his attempt was cut short by Esakoff, she still accepted that he had ‘set the record straight’ and thus his words up to this point needed to be included in these minutes.
The agenda items for the CEO Special Committee have also appeared – that makes it barely 11 hours prior to the actual meeting. There are 3 items: 2 identical ones concerning OH & S and compliance with the Local Government Act and another one which reads:
“This item is confidential pursuant to section 89(2) (a) “personnel” of the Local Government Act 1989 which relates to the CEO Employment contract.”
Again, we must ask whether this is a typical case of gentle coercion, or if the cart has already been put before the horse? To discuss ‘contracts’ implies that a decision to reappoint Newton has already been made. If it hasn’t been made, then surely the discussion must first focus on whether or not the CEO position is to be advertised and ONLY THEN should discussions centre on contracts.
These minutes and the agenda items are merely the latest in a long list of incidents which make us question both the ethical and governance practices at this council.
Glen Eira Debates 
November 8, 2011 at 11:41 AM
A pretty good guess would be that Newton and Burke’s fingerprints are all over this.
November 8, 2011 at 12:03 PM
Thanks to this blog. Without it none of us would be any the wiser as to what goes on. All we could rely on would be shonky minutes that have no relation to the events they claim happened.
November 8, 2011 at 4:45 PM
The argument that minutes aren’t Hansard is not going to save them this time. This set of minutes is plain good old censorship and the attempt to leave no trace of what really happened.
November 8, 2011 at 1:25 PM
The minutes contain no mention of the first vote taken and its 5 to 4 result. No motion was then put to rescind this vote or to declare it invalid in any way. Instead the minutes only show the second vote that happened under Tang’s urging.
No reasonable and objective observer of council meetings, or readers of this blog can condone these antics or the resulting manipulations of the official record. It’s no wonder that this council has refused to broadcast council proceedings as others do. If they did this then they would be a laughing stock everywhere and the bastardry that is going on would be fully exposed.
November 8, 2011 at 2:52 PM
Sounds like amateur hour, lucky we ain’t paying these clowns too much, they are not worth it.
November 10, 2011 at 12:00 PM
Oh Dear, I fear its happening again. The Agenda for the CEO Special Committee is written to give the impression the CEO contract will be automatically renewed. Of course this is not an error or mistake. The use of the words “which relates to the CEO Employment contract.” must be intentional.
The agenda is drawn up by council staff, not councillors. (The CEO is responsible for the agenda). If Newton did draw up or approve the agenda, he would have a conflict of interest.
It is time Council (ie, elected Councillors) formally approve (or disapprove) the agenda at the start of each council meeting. Council must ensure council staff declare all conflicts of interest in the agenda