URGENT BUSINESS
ESAKOFF: Asked that a ‘matter in relation to OH & S be considered. I would like to move that’. Hyams seconded.
Motion carried unanimously
Esakoff: ‘I would like to move a motion that I….read a statement’ Started to read the statement when Tang interrupted asking for her to explain what the motion was in relation to. Esakoff replied ‘correcting the record’. Tang then asked her to read out the motion. ‘My motion is to be able to read my statement….correction of record’.
Tang: asked Hyams ‘whether he would like to move a motion’
HYAMS: ‘Council authorise the mayor to read out a statement relating to OH & S compliance and allowing the record to be corrected’.
Tang again interrupted saying that Hyams’ motion shouldn’t replace Esakoff’s motion. Asked whether Hyams would withdraw his motion because Esakoff’s was first.
ESAKOFF: ‘I’m not sure I heard anything new in your motion….but feel free’. Hyams said that he wasn’t sure what Esakoff’s motion was. She repeated to ‘read a statement to correct the record in relation to OH& S compliance’. Burke then whispered in Esakoff’s ear and she asked for a seconder to the motion. More confusion reigned with Esakoff saying that she wants to read the statement and ‘I’m getting conflicting advice here’. More whisperings! Hyams again volunteered that Esakoff has to speak to the motion first and then Hyams would speak to the motion.
Esakoff then moved the motion to accept this as ‘urgent business’. Hyams again had to explain that Esakoff had to first move the motion about whether council would allow her to read the statement ‘you’re allowed to read the statement if the motion is passed’.
ESAKOFF: ‘then a vote on the request to read the statement?’
Motion was finally put and carried unanimously. Esakoff started to read the statement. Said that she wanted to ‘on behalf of council’ to correct the ‘assertions’ made by Penhalluriack at the last council meeting. She said that Penhalluriack had stated ‘that council officers had failed to table’ requests for reports at council meetings. ‘This statement is not true and on behalf of Council I apologise to the CEO….for these assertions being made without any supporting evidence….(the reports that Penhalluriack listed were) either ‘tabled at council meetings or provided to councillors’…..(further that there is no requirement that such reports have to go to council meetings) ‘as opposed to councillors or an assembly of councillors’.
Glen Eira Debates 
November 23, 2011 at 4:42 PM
Seriously, does anyone know what they are doing in the town hall. The CEO probably demanded an apology. Next time a councillor calls for a report then it may be an idea to get a committment from the councillor that they will share it with anyone that asks. Obviously the reports that do not get into the agenda are sensitive and someone doesn’t want public eyes seeing too much. Good way to corner a mealy mouth councillor.
November 23, 2011 at 5:11 PM
Bumbling, stumbling fools. The whole lot. After 8 years as councillor and 3 as mayor Esakoff should know by now what the hell she should be doing. Big top is a perfect description for the ongoing circus and these bunch of clowns. There’s other stuff here that needs close looking at. OH&S is listed but this has got nothing to do with making a statement about requests for reports. Unless of course Newton sees this as his own special version of bullying by Penhalluriack. It’s a nonsense statement by Esakoff and probably written by Newton himself. It also avoids the issues that Penhalluriack raised as to why when requests for reports are accepted by an open council these reports are not tabled back in an open council. If it’s good enough to be asked for in public and accepted by council resolution then it should be good enough to be presented back in public. Newton shouldn’t worry about “public eyes” since most officers reports are massaged anyway to produce whatever result he wants. What’s even stupider is that these clowns all voted to let her read the statement. A little fair dinkum integrity and collegiality would do more to preserve the reputation of this sinking council than this rubbish.
November 23, 2011 at 5:39 PM
Happy to accept constructive critisism but it would be very welcome if a more balanced view of what important issues are debated and decided at council meetings- for instance last night Council endorsed poker machine reforms (item 9.6) , voted to temporily fully fund the Take-a-Break childcare program-the first council to do so in Victoria (item 9.8) and instigated the first Carbon Reduction plan in GE (item 9.9)- these are all progressive positive initiatives and significant achievements.
November 23, 2011 at 5:55 PM
Thank you for your email Cr. Pilling. We acknowledge these other items you have referred to from last night and will report on them in the coming days. However, given the governance controversies which appear to have plagued this council for such a long time, we prioritised our schedule according to this criterion. As a councillor, you would appreciate the importance of prioritising:-)
November 23, 2011 at 9:16 PM
All good initiatives but residents need more and not in the 12 month lead up to elections. *mumble mumble Pilling voted for C60 mumble*
November 23, 2011 at 9:29 PM
I agree with Cr. Pilling that the temporary full funding of the Take-a-Break Programme was a good move, admirable in fact. Unfortunately what Cr. Pilling has neglected to mention is that the this good result costs less than $50k pa and is only until the end of 2012 or when government funding of the programme is resumed – which ever comes earlier.
As for Poker Machines – harken back to the Federal Elections … big issue then and only now is Glen Eira looking into reforms. Councils determine the no. of poker machines licenses in their muncipalities – other Council’s (Dandenong, Geelong) have been doing this for years and yet only now is Glen Eira reviewing.
As for the Carbon Reduction plan being the first in Glen Eira, might I point out that Australia (yes the whole phrigging nation!!!!) actually has legislated a carbon tax. This issue has been a well publicesed global issue for over a decade and yet Glen Eira has just implemented a carbon reduction plan.
For a Cr. (and a green) to request accolades on Pokies and Carbon Reduction is really pushing it.
Accolades are due to the temporary funding of Take a Break. What Cr. Pilling is the intent of Council if the government does not resume funding before the end of 2012? Will Council decide that the argument of who should fund the project (govt. vs council) is more important than the $50K pa the programme requires. Personally Cr., I am happy for my rates to fund this worthwhile programme which benefits residents in genuine need, rather than going into what promises to be the GESAC sink hole.
Forgive me Cr. if I restrain my applause
November 23, 2011 at 9:37 PM
What do you mean by progressive. These are normal things that we expect a council to be dealing with. Nothing progressive about these items, just normal. Stop trying to put a Green spin on things that you had little to do with. Your mates in Canberra will feel silly when we have to pay for carbon credits from Europe which were earned by building nuclear power stations. $23 a tonne. The Greens should learn a bit about accounting. None of it adds up.
November 24, 2011 at 3:17 PM
Cr. Pilling, I’m very angered by your comments. You write about “important issues” but don’t appear to fully recognise what these important issues are. When a report by the Auditor General says that council is at “high risk” nothing is stated or reported back to the community. Don’t you think this is an “important issue” and more significant that a motherhood statement about poker machines and carbon reduction? I’ve now read the Auditor’s report and the appendices at the back from various councils establish that his letter/fax/email was sent out on the 28th October. There was an intervening council meeting. This could have gone on the agenda either to inform the community or to allay fears. Nothing was included. Then we come to this week’s council meeting where the Mayor is able to read a totally rubbish statement under the guise of Urgent Business. Once more could you please tell us if this was more important than the Auditor General’s downgrading of Glen Eira?
I also see that when this same Auditor General less than a month ago praised Glen Eira for its management of infrastructure programs that there was a link from the home page to this positive publicity. With this report there is no comment or information available. I honestly think that if it wasn’t for this blog then residents would not know a damn thing that is going on in council!
I also respectfully suggest that you and your fellow councillors have neglected what are the really big issues in this community. You don’t see the big picture maybe because you’re not given the information to view this wider picture, or because you choose to ignore it and then again maybe because you have all been brow beaten into submission and complaince. Whatever the reason I would say that most people in the community are totally fed up with the governance and the continual squabbling that goes on with the resultant waste of money for lawyers. Look around you and please, please realise that the really big issues for people are planning, traffic management and consultation. None of these things have been dealt with. That’s your job. Fix up these basic things first and then we can all sit back and praise Glen Eira for being so “progressive”. Until then your statements are meaningless.
November 23, 2011 at 5:55 PM
I think Cr Pilling maybe right!
November 23, 2011 at 6:35 PM
Pilling is both right and wrong. If you fix governance then everything else will follow. Decisions will be open and transparent, residents views will get onto the table, and there will be less secrecy. That’s been the major concern all along. The carbon reduction scheme is okay as far as it goes – but it only goes a short way and after so many years that’s not enough. What we’re about to have is a major huge complex that will produce enough carbon emissions to sink a battleship – but this policy doesn’t even address anything about gesac. Much of these “advances” are tiny kiddy steps on a marathon rather than major achievements as Cr Pilling describes them. Maybe if proper governance got more attention and councillors realised that its their obligation to set policy and direction rather than officers, then then we’d end up with a real policy instead of something that’s basically window dressing and pretty ineffectual.
November 23, 2011 at 7:28 PM
The Gang of 4 plus Magee protect the GESAC folly, because, it there folly.
When the councillor numbers are different and the will is there,GESAC problems can be retroactively dealt with. Lets hope!
November 23, 2011 at 9:42 PM
Be very interesting to look at the books after 12 months to see if the projections of revenue are close to actual. They never are. .
November 23, 2011 at 10:45 PM
You lot are truely hopeless. What about the so called Mayor’s statement. Frank, if she is correct , and I believe she is, then Frank has to resign. Only a fool makes statements that are wrong because they could’nt be bothered checking the facts. Go Frank. You have lost all credability.
November 23, 2011 at 10:55 PM
In recent months we’ve seen a series of abuses of Local Law by Margaret and her friends. And now she pulls this latest stunt. As a reminder, here’s s225 from “our” Local Law:
No business shall be considered at an ordinary meeting of the Council
unless it appears in the notice paper or in a report accompanying the
notice paper, except:-
(1) if a matter of an urgent nature has arisen since circulation of the
notice paper and the Council resolves to consider the matter as
urgent business;
…
The “urgent business” she raised refers to the previous Council meeting, which occured 3 weeks ago. It did *not* arise since circulation of the notice paper last Friday. Both Margaret and apparently Jamie have conspired to silence Frank through open abuse of Local Law (which covers meeting procedure), and here she is again, ignoring LL to attack Frank.
Now what the hell were the other councillors thinking, to stand idly by while this abuse was perpetrated before their very eyes?
I’m also curious how the statement she made could have been on behalf of council without council resolution to do so. It *is* true that various officer reports have failed to be tabled at council meetings. She admitted it. The onus is on the CEO to demonstrated that all requested reports have been tabled at council to prove otherwise. The CEO has not done so. Its the reasons that are being sought.
It may well be the case that requested reports can be suppressed in the manner that Margaret alleges has taken place, but that doesn’t make it morally or ethically right. If anything, it reinforces the view of some of us that council has lost its way and that the CEO is at the centre of the problem.
I notice on Cr Pilling’s Blog that in June 2009 he commented that he believed then that the position of CEO should always be advertised, as do I. He also quite correctly pointed out that the CEO’s position is the only one that council (meaning councillors) has the responsibility to appoint. The CEO gets to choose his or her Senior Officers. For Andrew to have been reappointed I would expect him to demonstrate how he was going to improve the quality of administration, and that others couldn’t do it, or wouldn’t do it for less money.
I don’t share the confidence that Margaret claims on behalf of the 8 councillors who sat on the Special Committee in secret and without Minutes worthy of the name. There is simply no credible evidence available to the public to support the contentions she made.
November 23, 2011 at 11:11 PM
Readers should also know that at last night’s council meeting the minutes were ‘set right’ by councillors – again. Penhalluriack’s ‘right of reply’ of the previous meeting, where he was continually interrupted and eventually said to be ‘irrelevant’ was endorsed by councillors via Hyams’ motion to amend the minutes as follows: As printed except … the minutes should read ‘Cr. Penhalluriack made a statement that was ruled out of order on the grounds that it was irrelevant’….I think it’s necessary to put this in because ‘even though the statement was ruled irrelevant’ it was made’. Thus the failure (refusal) to include Penhalluriack’s comments (or at least part of them) were legitimated via this resolution.
Instead of an accurate and true reflection of proceedings the minutes at Glen Eira have become the most malleable and political tool available. We can only marvel at the complicity of all councillors in what can only be described as the deliberate rewriting of history.
November 24, 2011 at 11:42 AM
This is exactly why Margaret should resign, not just as Mayor, but from Council. Jamie should also reconsider his position. Undermining the Local Law, as they have undoubtedly done, shouldn’t be acceptable to any councillor who understands what democracy means.
I disagreed at the time, and still disagree, that the Mayor has the power to silence councillors and prevent them from exercising their Right To Make a Statement. It should *not* be sufficient to claim without evidence to the contrary that a statement is “irrelevant”. Its not in itself a satisfactory “reason”, and relevance has to relate to something. As a concept it makes sense in the context of a debate on a motion, but not when a councillor is attempting to respond to comments made or reported about them in order to balance the views the public might otherwise form. Its for *us*, the public, to decide if its relevant and to consider whether it influences our views.
Constitutions and Local Laws provide a framework that we expect representatives to abide by. These frameworks are not there to serve a self-appointed powerful elite to rule absolutely over all others. Once the principle is accepted that the Mayor can declare anything as “irrelevant” without evidence or justification, then nobody is free to speak on matters of public interest.
In a broader context, we’re seeing this behaviour get repeated at State and National level, such as the violence directed at the Occupy movement. From Crikey 21 Nov 2011:
“…that governments now instinctively lash out at dissent and rely heavily on spin to protect themselves. It reinforces the cynicism of voters who have become all too aware of the credibility gap in western societies between the carefully-prepared talking points of government (and corporate) leaders and reality.”
Something has gone really horribly wrong with the current flock of councillors and administrators, in the behaviour at meetings, in the quality of information they’re prepared to make public, in their observance of LGA and LL. The reappointment of Andrew suggests they don’t recognize it themselves and have absolutely no desire to reform their behaviour.
November 25, 2011 at 6:05 PM
We received this email from Barbara C who asked us to put up her comment –
“Whatever happened to honest, transparent and democratic government??? Blackmailing the councillors?? We need the best person for the job. If it is the present incumbent, the so be it, but let’s see who else in out there!! Is the present person so insecure and unsure of himself that he does not want any competition??? Twelve years? “