The minutes for the November 22nd Council Meeting have made a very, very speedy appearance on Council’s website. We are however, continually amazed at the lack of logic that is contained in council’s reports and in the motions that are tabled. These minutes exemplify in spades the division and blatant ‘control mechanisms’ that we believe are being instigated by ‘the gang’ and Newton.
The in camera agenda items listed the following: “12.5 under s89(2)(f)” legal advice” which relates to right of reply”. More ratepayers funds are thus being wasted on ‘legal advice’ . Next, the minutes feature the outcome of this discussion item –
“Crs Lipshutz/Tang
In relation to Cr Penhalluriack’s 9 August Right of Reply, Council:
1. Notes that on 9 August 2011 Cr Frank Penhalluriack made a Right of Reply in which he stated in part:
“The article refers to a legal stoush, and claims that residents are saying that Council has sought legal advice concerning allegations that I have bullied our Chief Executive Officer, Mr Andrew Newton. I am embarrassed and demeaned by such an unfounded allegation reaching publication in such a widely circulated newspaper. And I can safely presume that our Chief Executive Officer will also suffer this embarrassment.”
2. Resolves to disassociate itself from the comments made by Cr Penhalluriack referred to in paragraph 1 above.
3. That this resolution be incorporated in to the public record of this meeting.
The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously.
COMMENTS:
- Penhalluriack is expressing a personal reaction to what has been in the public domain. He is entitled to respond to such items. Furthermore, he is stating that he is embarrassed. Since when is it a ‘crime’ and the cause for ‘legal advice’ when someone admits their embarrassment?
- He ‘presumes’ that the CEO is equally embarrassed by such media reports. Again, a logical assumption and not a hanging offence.
- Nowhere in this motion DOES COUNCIL DENY THE TRUTH OF PENHALLURIACK’S STATEMENT.
- Nowhere in this motion does Penhalluriack BULLY, HARRASS, OR VILIFY THE CEO, so what on earth is there for Council to disassociate itself from?
- Why after three months does this only now appear in the public domain?
- What is the motivation behind such an ill thought out resolution except to tarnish and attempt to discredit one councillor?
But it gets even better. The minutes then record the following: Item 12.6(b). We note the following and again question the transparency of what goes on behind the closed doors of in camera meetings and assembly meetings. THERE IS NO ITEM 12.6 (b) LISTED IN THE AGENDA OR IN THE MINUTES – only Item 12.6(a). In other words, the Agenda & Minutes do not reflect in any shape or form what is discussed in secret. If this was a late item – then it should have been included as 12.6(b) in the minutes. Thus discussions go on without the necessary disclosure as required by the Local Government Act. However, we have full confidence that at the next Council Meeting Hyams will leap up with another ‘correction’ to the minutes which will annul this ‘clerical error’ or oversight!
The minutes then go on to report –
Item 12.6 (b)
2. In the interest of considered decision-making, Council strongly encourages all councillors to submit all motions to the Mayor and councillors in writing prior to a Council meeting, except where the motion arises during the course of the meeting or in extraordinary circumstances.
3. That Council strongly encourages all councillors not to support any motion initiated by any councillor unless the motion has been submitted in writing to councillors prior to the Council meeting except where the motion arises during the course of the meeting or in extraordinary circumstances.
COMMENTS
- ‘strongly encourages’ is meaningless – legally, morally, ethically. It is nothing but an attempt to gag councillors and circumvent open, spontaneous, and genuine debate within the council chamber. It has no authority of law backing it – that’s why the phrase ‘strongly encourages’ is used. It is not worth the paper it is written on we suggest!
- We also find it obscene in its attempt to direct how councillors should or shouldn’t vote on any matter raised by another councillor.
The extraordinary thing about all this, is that councillors continue to bow their heads, and abdicate their responsibilities to their constituents. When we thought that the low point has been reached in the governance practices of this council, we always seem to find another benchmark which is even lower!
Glen Eira Debates 
November 24, 2011 at 6:11 PM
Ya just can’t believe all this stuff. These councillors are morons. Everyone knows that Newton is accusing Penhalluriack of bullying. It’s not a secret. He doesn’t say who made the allegation just that it’s unfounded. End of story. But not for Newton. He’ll twist everyone’s arm to get what he wants and Lipshutz, Esakoff and Hyams are his little flag bearers doing all his dirty work. Ya have to put Magee, Forge, Lobo, and Pilling into this category as well. They’ve got no balls to tell him to shove it up his you know what. Wake up morons before it’s too late and your all dismissed or charged with bullying!
November 24, 2011 at 6:22 PM
Reprobate, where are you? The 12.6(b) minutes are truly amazing. I want to know under what section of the act they could possibly have been discussed in camera. As far as I can see they are attempting to direct councillors in how to vote and establishing some kind of policy that was obviously left out from the local law – but in camera? No way!!!! there’s nothing here about bringing council into disrepute, legal actions, commercial in confidence, developments, etc. Nothing fits under the rubric of this section of the act. It is bullshit all the way along and probably highly illegal as a result.
November 24, 2011 at 11:17 PM
Local Government is theoretically governed by the Local Government Act 1989. Its supposed to ensure that Council is responsible and accountable to the local community. Under Part 4 Division 2 Procedure And Proceedings Section 89 it specifies (in the bizarre language that poorly paid legal draughtsfolk use) that meetings must be open to members of the public, unless Council resolves to close them if discussing any of a looooong list of items eg s89(2)(f) “legal advice”. They are required to record the reason(s) for closing in the Minutes by s89(3).
As has been revealed about Councils generally, and Glen Eira in particular, the use of these secrecy provisions has been widely abused. Meetings don’t have to be closed when discussing these topics–councillors merely have the power to do so if they so resolve. Well in Glen Eira they always close the meetings if there is a whiff of grounds (a) through (i) about them. Ground (i) is extraordinary, in that they can close a meeting in order to discuss whether to close a meeting (somewhat pointless by then).
I don’t accept the nomination of a clause in s89 as sufficient reason for closing a meeting since its not obligatory to close. There should be a more compelling reason provided, something other than power for power’s sake. Clearly councillors, council officers, Local Government Inspectorate, State Parliament, the media, and all other vested interests in the status quo don’t agree with me. Despite more holes than a Sierpinski Sieve, the juggernaut rolls on.
November 24, 2011 at 8:31 PM
There’s nothing in the Local Law preventing a councillor from expressing a personal viewpoint if something has come into the public arena. That what Penhalluriack has done. No one condemned Lipshutz when he set off on a personal crusade against the frisbee people or other members of the public, nor Hyams when he let fly either. There’s one rule for the gang and Newton and another rule for everyone else. Esakoff didn’t stop Penhalluriack when he made this reply and neither did anyone else. Newton’s fingerprints are written all over this and its disgusting that other councillors just sit there and let him get away with this kind of stuff. The agenda is set by him so this has to be the source of the item and probably the motion itself – although the lackeys names are attached to it. He should have been sacked in 2002 then this council might just have been able to become half way decent.
November 24, 2011 at 9:08 PM
Interesting … so all anyone who attends a Council Meeting to hear/assess individual Councillor’s performance is going to see a dog and pony show, orchestrated by the maestro. All Councillor motions/amendments will need to be pre-approved and contentious issues will be resolved behind closed doors and only consensus decisions will be recorded in Council Minutes.
Passed by a unanimous vote …. goodbye to even paying lip service to “open and transparent”.
Any candidate in the next election that mentions rescinding this motion (12b)should be a shoe in and where possible, should ensure that their preferences go to none of the current encumbents since this has clearly shown they are incapable of acting in the residents interests.
Keep up the good work Councillors … you are continually making the various community groups that are rallying to dethrone you that much easier.
November 24, 2011 at 9:31 PM
I suspect that the second set of resolutions are not about “decision making” at all but rather, about control. The argument put forward by its proponents is that informed decision making can only occur after “full and frank” discussion and advice from officers. This may well be true in other councils, but not in Glen Eira. It also assumes that councillors are incapable of making rational and right decisions in the council chamber without the intervention of officers. That’s why they need to be “prepped” beforehand so that the officers can control the seepage of information and potentially deflect any unpopular motions or ideas that might be presented on the chamber floor. When there is notice of what you’re going to move, or say, then it is very easy to counter and sabotage. But it also has the result of gagging councillors and preventing them from addressing an issue. Glen Eira doesn’t have a notice of motion, it doesn’t have anyone apart from the ceo setting the agenda, and it certainly doesn’t have regular people addressing council. The control is almost total. All that is needed is the ruling clique to vote such restrictions in and then to enforce them whenever they feel like it. I always thought that I live in a democracy where free speech is allowed. I never realised that Glen Eira was a not so benevolent dictatorship run by unelected mandarins and their treacherous favourites.
November 24, 2011 at 9:45 PM
Fascinating. Pythoneseque even. Item 12.5 was listed in the section Consideration Of Confidential Items, and the reason given was ‘s89 (2)(f) “legal advice” which relates to right of reply’.
Frank exercised his Right To Make A Statement [LL s238], which was appropriate given what had been leaked to the public. Not that we’ll ever know who was doing the leaking. I can only speculate for the moment that the legal advice influenced Council to resolve to make the statement as published in the Minutes for 22 Nov 2011.
Fortunately, the Local Government Act 1989 *requires* the following:
93 Minutes of meetings
…
(6) The minutes of a meeting of the Council or a special committee must—
(a) contain details of the proceedings and resolutions made;
(b) be clearly expressed;
(c) be self-explanatory;
(d) in relation to resolutions recorded in the
minutes, incorporate relevant reports or a
summary of the relevant reports considered
in the decision making process.
Council has explicitly identified that the resolution was made in response to legal advice, and is now *obliged* to publish the advice or a summary of that advice that they considered in resolving to “dissociate” from the statement. The Minutes, as always, is devoid of any such summary, and is in breach of 93(6)(d). Yet again. Crs Lipshutz and Tang in proposing and seconding the abhorrent motion have a duty to correct the public record. A good start would be a transcription of what they said when speaking to their motion.
As for Item 12.6(b) [again missing relevant reports or even a summary thereof], it appears to be part of the misguided and continuing public vendetta being conducted by some members of Council and Council staff. As Andrew chided councillors earlier in the year, he reserved the right not to include on the Agenda any item for which officers had failed to produce a relevant report–in the interests of “considered decision-making” of course.
Maybe that’s why our councillors have adopted s234(22) “The Chairperson may require motions to be put in writing.” All that was really needed was for our councillors to reaffirm their commitment to what the Local Law says. That would however mean not interrupting somebody when they choose to exercise their Right To Make A Statement. And there’s a bunch of other obligations that they’re clearly uncomfortable with given how frequently they ignore them.
Now just what the hell is Item 12.6(b)? There appears to be no motion, no mover or seconder, just some random text that is incongruent with actual council behaviour. Council doesn’t strongly encourage “all councillors not to support any motion initiated by any councillor unless the motion has been submitted in writing to councillors prior to the Council meeting…”. Margaret very deliberately and pointedly ignored that and chose to abuse Urgent Business to make a Statement that clearly didn’t fit the criteria contained in Local Law for Urgent Business. Not a single Councillor present spoke against her taking that action or the motion. That means they endorsed the abuse, presumably without recognizing the irony.
Far from correcting the record, “our” councillors have knowingly and wilfully set out to pervert the public record. Frank asked for a report “detailing why the following Council resolutions requesting Officers reports have not been tabled in Council and therefore officially recorded in the Minutes as Public Record documents”. Margaret subsequently admitted that reports may not have been recorded in the Minutes [well duh!] or tabled in Council, which pretty much puts a lie to her Statement. If she truly believes her Statement and done Due Diligence, then for each report we would have available the date of the Minutes in which it was published and could peruse them.
If she was an AFL official, there’d be a “Please Explain” coming from Head Office.
November 24, 2011 at 10:01 PM
12b smacks of all the arrogance of Howard and Brumby. Like them, this Council has developed an attitude of invincibility and disregard for both democratic processes and the electors. Councillors are not fulfilling their election promises, they are purely focussing on their own survival as they continue to allow the Glen Eira coffers to be plundered.
Could someone please let me know how 12b could be considered as in camera item. I admit I am not completely versed in the in camera rules but I do have an understanding and my confusion is not due to personal stupidity. The only thing I can think of is an earlier in camera item was used as an umbrella which enabled 12b to wriggle in.
Surely a change of this magnitude should have been openly discussed so that residents (who are far from being morons) could make their own assessment and be provided with an opportunity to express that assessment.
This is yet another instance of arrogance, perceived invincibility and disregard for residents trumping due pocesses and democratic principles.