4th October
- Submission on Parking Review to State Government – a four page document. Again secret and not tabled in council and not in the public domain
11th October
- More tampering? – “amendments to Item 12.6 of 20th September 2011 Council Meeting’. This item read: “under s 89 (2) (a) “personnel”, (d) “contractual”, (f) “legal advice” and (h) “may prejudice the Council or any person” which relates to Occupational Health And Safety”.
- ‘Compliance with the Local Government Act’ – more bullying?
18th October
Absent Forge & Penhalluriack
- “Four letters from a legal firm representing a councillor’. Now which councillor might be seeking legal advice? Maybe a case of ‘while the cats away the rats will play’?
- Tang arrives half an hour late
- Legal advice abounds: “item 6.2 – Rights of Reply, in camera pursuant to s89(2)(f) ‘legal advice’ of the Local Government Act”; “Item 6.3 A council resolution, in camera pursuant to s89(2)(f) ‘legal advice’ of the Local Government Act”; “Item 6.4 Legal advice pursuant to s89(2)(f)’legal advice’ of the Local Government Act”.
Please note the only ‘Rights of Reply’ that have occurred recently are by Penhalluriack. Obviously the powers that be did not take too kindly to what he had to say – hence more ratepayers funds expended on ‘legal advice’.
25th October
- Fiddling once more? – “Agenda Item 4 – Minutes of the 11 October 2011 Council Meeting Item 10 A (i)”. This was “urgent business’ where ‘nil’ was listed, yet it became the secret ‘revision’ of the CEO Special Committee.
Glen Eira Debates 
November 19, 2011 at 12:57 PM
There are many forms of bullying. Latest tactics are get legal advice on everything. This way you scare the shit out of any councillor who might be thinking of a fair dinkum right of reply. Other plus is that you don’t worry about paying for anything yourself. It all comes courtesy of ratepayers. Reckon we should get some more legal advice to determine whether this falls under the category of bullying and harrassment?
November 19, 2011 at 4:41 PM
When ya continually rehashing minutes that are done in secret meetings then ya gotta start asking “why”? Saving their arses I reckon and making sure everything looks kosher.
November 19, 2011 at 7:15 PM
Quite extraordinary how often previous “minutes” are “reviewed” and possibly altered. These have all been passed by the council, often several meetings ago, so the constant “reviews” need to be questioned – either they weren’t “accurate” in the first place and thus should never have been passed or, the fix up is occuring at these later dates. Whichever, the practise is at best unorthodox and at worst suspect. But then again, there have already been previous occasions when we’ve learnt that Dr. Hyams is quite prepared to rescustitate the poor record according to his particular version of reality. The disease is becoming quite contagious and is spreading through all councillors by the looks of things.
November 19, 2011 at 9:04 PM
Let’s face it, until we remove Crs Lipshutz, Hyams, Tang and Esakoff, Newton and Burke, and “independent” committee members David Gibbs and Gary Mclean, nothing us going to change. The Councillors can get voted out on 11 months time but now that Newton has his extension, the others can continue on in perpetuity forgetting good governance and performance.
November 20, 2011 at 4:18 PM
If the rumours are correct and the gang has given Newton another two years then all hell should break loose. It is thumbing its nose at the community and ensuring the Lipshutz power hold continues. I can’t help wondering what’s in it for him apart from a gigantic ego and stupendous arrogance. Esakoff and Hyams are in his thrall and the question should be asked of them as well. Newton is 100% a liability that has been shown again and again and it will continue to be so with his now well set tactics of bluff and legal threats. Tang’s position is perhaps more clear since he’s married to Lipshutz’s neice! Lobo doesn’t even deserve to call himself councillor given his backflips and lack of input. They must all go in October 2012.
November 20, 2011 at 12:44 AM
I am seriously concerned by the assembly report of 4th October – “Submission on Parking Review to State Government” – a four page document.
Time and time the Leader reports residents complaints on parking. Time and time again ojections to developments raise this issue. Time and time again Council goes through a sham planning community consulting process only to insert the now seemingly mandatory quote of “This is a byproduct of both State and Local strategic planning policies channeling more intense developments and uses into activity centres such as this”.
Not only does the inclusion of such a statement point to
. Council’s disregard of residents concerns (Council is merely off laying the blame)
. indicate Council is hog tied. In fact this is not the case, Council does have the power to do something – for instance they can refuse to issue residential parking permits for the developments.
One therefore can’t help wondering what can possibly be included in a 4 page report to the government when only a one liner is given to the residents.
November 20, 2011 at 9:56 AM
Same old story as with the Planning submission. Discuss behind closed doors and to hell with residents knowing council’s position – that would be too incriminating. I wouldn’t get too excited about 4 pages either. The first couple of pages would be saying how good council is and the last two would be all mumbo jumbo with a one liner that reveals anything about future objectives. If this mob have put in 4 pages you can bet that other councils have doubled this effort.