We’ve recently featured posts on the administration’s performance in tabling Requests for Reports. We remind readers that Newton claimed that such requests were “submitted promptly – usually to the immediately following Council Meeting”. The use of Upper Case would suggest that this is an Ordinary Council Meeting and NOT an assembly of councillors. Newton cannot have it both ways. Either the above statement is false and inaccurate, or all councillor requests for reports have been tabled at Council Meetings. History tells us that this is not the case, and even when councillors have specifically stated where and when they wish reports tabled this has not been done. In other words, council resolutions do not appear to have been fulfilled by the administration.
Below is a request for a report taken from the minutes of 26th July, 2004. Readers will note the clear and unequivocal time frame and the demand that the report be provided in open Council. Needless to say, this report was not forthcoming on the date requested and to the best of our knowledge did not appear in subsequent Ordinary Council Meetings.
We’ve highlighted this specific report given the goings on with GESAC and the lack of information forthcoming to the public and possibly, councillors themselves.
“CAPITAL WORKS PROGRAM 2004/05
Crs Grossbard/Marwick
That a report be presented to the Ordinary Council Meeting on 6 September 2004 outlining the stages of progress on all Council major capital works projects budgeted for 2004-2005 financial year
The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously”.
We reiterate that no report on “all major capital works projects” was contained in the minutes of 6th September 2004
We find it unacceptable that accountability and transparency have fallen victim to semantics and linguistic sleight of hand.
Glen Eira Debates 
November 17, 2011 at 12:53 AM
The sham administration is all just smoke and mirrors. Plenty of mirrors – “we are just looking into it”. Question is, how do we get such simple, clear council directives complied with?
Oh, I know. Lets invoke the old Democrats line: “Keep the bastards honest”. Simply ask Newton to report back to council on “How we can keep the bastards honest”. Councillors can then all go back to sleep. There will be no report forthcoming. ZZZZZZZ.
November 17, 2011 at 8:36 AM
Smoke and mirros will be on full display when the gesac report that Lipshutz promised comes out in the agenda this week. That’s if it does appear. I think it’s a distinct possibility that we’ll only get a peek at it after the appointment decision has been made. He wouldn’t want to muddy the waters with the bad news in case some councillors hold it against him.
November 17, 2011 at 9:11 AM
Not foreseeing the need for car parking at the outset for GESAC is just plain bad administration. Most planning permits that come before council require a car parking plan. I think you maybe right Colin, no report, decision to re-appoint for a further 2 years, then the GESAC report full of excuses and spin. Enough to make most of the Councillors unelectable. In 2012. We get a fresh bunch of naive councillors and a CEO that has about 12 months to demonstrate he is worthy of another 5 years. Of course the new Councillors would be told how they are so much better than the last bunch. Serious sucking up gets you places. Doesn’t it make ya feel good!!!!!!
November 17, 2011 at 7:38 AM
Andrew Newton learnt his methodology in the 1990’s in the Federal and State Public service. In those days the internet was in its infancy. The word “blog” was not in our vocabulary. Being closely scrutinised was not part of the game in those days. For better or worse all their activities are under the microscope in 2011. Make intriging reading. The outcome will be facinating.
November 17, 2011 at 8:59 AM
The opinion that semantics has an unparalleled role in all this I think is unquestionable. I’ve gone back over the posts from last council meeting and on re-reading Newton’s answer to the Hyams’ question it suddenly struck me how effective his language is in side stepping the question and criticising others. Newton used the word “accusation” against Penhalluriack, which was questioned by Pilling. From reading the blog it didn’t sound like an “accusation” to me. It was a fair and reasonable question that needs answering. Newton was also extremely careful to say that the requests for reports were all provided in writing to councillors. But this missed the essential point of where the writing was delivered – that is, in an open Council Meeting or in the assemblies – which was the whole point I gather of the Penhalluriack question. He really is a master at such wordplay. But this shouldn’t be enough to excuse him. Spin is fine in its place but it should never be allowed to excuse poor practice.
November 17, 2011 at 9:14 AM
We’re getting a pretty good picture here of how Newton works and how councillors are a mere inconvenience to his dynasty. Truly a case of the tail wagging the dog. Councillors may ask, but they don’t get. Unless they’re like those little lap dogs that crawl and sidle up to their owners and are eternally greatful for any little pat on the head. They get thrown a bone occasionally and that’s enough to keep them happy. Newton should remember however that dogs do occasionally bite the hand that feeds them.
November 17, 2011 at 9:50 AM
sack him now
November 17, 2011 at 3:43 PM
What may seem bungling and incompetent, may in fact deliberate disrespect for the position of the councilors by the bureaucrats
This needs to be resolved and the relationship put in working order
Even if it means clearing out the cupboards and tossing out of the dinosaurs