From the minutes of 22nd November under ‘Urgent Business’
STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF COUNCIL BY THE MAYOR
Cr Esakoff: “On behalf of Council I wish to correct the record in relation to assertions made by Cr Frank Penhalluriack at the Ordinary Council Meeting on 2 November 2011 in his request for a report.
It was stated by Cr Penhalluriack that Officers had failed to table reports at Council Meetings.
This statement is not true and on behalf of Council I apologies (sic) to the CEO and Officers for these assertions being made without any supporting evidence.
It is noted that reports listed were either tabled at Council Meetings or provided to Councillors. It is further noted that there is no requirement unless specified that a report once prepared must go to a Council Meeting as opposed to Councillors or an Assembly of Councillors.”
We have previously commented that Andrew Newton’s statement that reports are “submitted promptly – usually to the immediately following Council Meeting” implies that ALL requests for reports are tabled at ordinary COUNCIL MEETINGS – as signified by the use of Upper Case. The Esakoff statement is thus not only incorrect but again totally illogical. She in fact admits that Penhalluriack had made ‘assertions’ that Officers ‘failed to table reports at Council Meetings’ – yet in the final paragraph there is the admission that the reports Penhalluriack referred to were “EITHER TABLED AT COUNCIL MEETINGS OR PROVIDED TO COUNCILLORS”. This in fact CONFIRMS everything that Penhalluriack said.
There are many other points we could quibble with – such as; what does ‘provided’ mean? What ‘evidence’ is required when Penhalluriack is talking about the ABSENCE of tabled reports in full Council Meetings. The ‘evidence’ is to be found in the minutes of all these meetings and the fact that NONE of the reports he read out appear in them. And surely the onus to provide proof to the contrary rests with Esakoff here and not Penhalluriack?
We can only ask why, with supposedly 8 intelligent people sitting as councillors, and 3 lawyers to boot, how no-one could see the inherent contradictions throughout this statement. It in fact makes a laughing stock of Esakoff and the rest. In their haste to do Newton’s bidding, logic, clear thinking, and respect for governance has been well and truly scuttled. This statement only cements the growing perception among residents of the incompetence of these councillors, the manipulation by officers for their own ends, and the abandonment of all principles of what constitutes good governance. It is utterly shameful and should be condemned by all residents concerned with what is happening to this Council.
Glen Eira Debates 
November 24, 2011 at 10:33 PM
Maggie, which intellectual giant wrote this neat little speech for you? – Newton, Burke, Lipshutz, Hyams? You’d better send them off for a remedial course in symbolic logic because they sure need it!
November 24, 2011 at 10:53 PM
These posts are incredibly depressing. Instead of council concentrating on what’s really important such as a “high risk” rating by the Auditor General hours upon hours have been spent attempting to discredit one single councillor for having the courage to call a spade a spade and asking questions that need to be asked. On top of this, councillors have allowed public funds to be used in what can only be termed a persecution of Penhalluriack. Lawyers are coming out of the woodwork everywhere and they have surely cost ratepayers the earth. “Legal advice” is fine when it’s legitimate. It’s not fine when used to point score and to discredit someone who is merely doing their job as a councillor. The tragedy is that other councillors are not following Penhalluriack’s lead. Maybe if they did the community could save themselves tens of thousands of dollars in lawyers fees and the paranoia that Mr Newton continues to exhibit will have dissipated. These events must be stopped and councillors accept that their duty is to use funds wisely and for the benefit of the community. It must never be used to suit the demands of administrators and their obvious seige mentality.
November 24, 2011 at 11:22 PM
Here’s a little advice to Forge, Pilling, Magee and Penhalluriack. Form your own little clique. Copy the gang and always vote as a block regardless of what the motion is. Always call for a division so that people will know who voted for what and will remember this at election time cos people do have long memories on things they care about. Remember that strength lies in numbers. It’s easy to pick off one councillor but it becomes damn hard to knock off four. Whenever Lipshutz, Hyams or Tang gets up to pontificate then leap to your feet like graceful gazelles and raise ‘Points of Order’ time and time again. Move amendments. Make nonsense requests for reports. Make personal replies at each council meeting and get your head in the Leader as often as you possibly can. That always works a treat. Next don’t be timid to keep asking the bosses questions. There’s nothing in the local law to stop you asking officers as many questions as you like. Make them earn their keep. You should also refrain from grovelling and try to dissent as often as you can from the Chairs ruling. You do it once and it becomes so easy – water off a duck’s back. See, it doesn’t hurt after all and the sky doesn’t fall in either. Just remember to make sure that when you ask questions they are not long. Short and to the point with no escape clauses for Newton. Whenever Lipshutz mumbles interrupt him and ask him to speak loudly so everyone can hear. Bring in a stop watch so you can time Lipshutz, Tang and Hyams and cut them short when they go over 3 minutes. Pass notes to each other all evening because that will really get them going and they won’t know what you’re up to. In assemblies take extensive notes especially what the gang and Burke say. Keep this in store for future use. In short, don’t just sit there like stuffed dummies. Unite, organise, defy. Be the opposition that is desperately needed. Only then will you have the community’s respect.
November 24, 2011 at 11:37 PM
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men [and women] to do nothing.” — Edmund Burke
November 25, 2011 at 7:50 AM
“We are here to represent the silent majority with what we think they want”
– Paul Burke
November 25, 2011 at 10:25 AM
Well, just look at what one person the Green councillor has achieved in two years, Glen Eira has gone from a basket case on environment to steaming ahead and a worthy pace on worthy ideals. Sure there is more to be done, and things done may have been done better. But that’s life. Philling must have worked with everyone to bring Glen Eira forwards, so the progressions belong to everyone and more to the point they are good for the residents which is what it all about to the voters. He could have wasted his time in pitch battles with other councillors if he had wanted. But he obviously worked with others, under the prevailing trying conditions, he must of compromised here and there for the good of peace and progression in Glen Eira. But progress was made, so well done all.
Building a large list of enemies when you are in a minority, and being steam-rolled, like what happens to Frank Pen… on a regular basis is all a bit silly. All this battling in public may shows the divide lines between councillors and give sensational blogging material, but it doesn’t show what could have been if people had used there talents and worked together to progress our city.
“Distrust, breeds distrust, which breeds distrust” – Anonymous
November 25, 2011 at 10:57 AM
I wouldn’t exacctly call what’s been happening on environment issues as “steaming ahead”. Pilling is probably a very nice guy and has been trying his best. I don’t doubt that for a second but after three years and not two there’s very little to show for his efforts. When you tally things up none of these councillors have got anything to be proud of. Name me one thing that any of them have achieved and that includes the second and third termers on council. What can Esakoff list as her achievements? What about Lipshutz and so on?
Anonymous, there’s also more to being a councillor than just sporting pavilions or environment issues. Compromise is part of politics for sure but to compromise to the extent that you give away everything isn’t a compromise it’s more like a total shut down. Whatever Pilling thinks about the bullying and the setting up of the special committee his votes on the latter show some disapproval but he and the others ended up voting with the gang in these last minutes. I suspect to present a united front. To me this is hypocritical and counterproductive. If in your heart you don’t agree with what’s happening then for heaven’s sake stick to your principles. It doesn’t serve the community well when we’re presented with a lie and it only cedes more control and power to those petty little dictators. Nobody wants continual conflict but ask yourself why it’s there and whose causing it and for what purpose. If the purpose is to close down debate and free speech then its got to be objected to and Pilling and others haven’t done this. When there’s no public opposition then that’s when this kind of behaviour is allowed to flourish and contaminate everything else.
November 25, 2011 at 12:25 PM
You cannot blame Cr. Pilling for the behaviour of other councillors, he has been elected as a greens councillor to progress the environmental and social issues in GE. Getting caught up in all the other mud-slinging and personal machinations that has dogged GE for decades would and would have been a mistake, effectively a dead end.
November 25, 2011 at 12:45 PM
We’re at a dead end when no one speaks up!
November 25, 2011 at 1:58 PM
Newton runs the city from his manifesto. If it happens to contain some evironmental issues then good luck for Neil. Ring Neil up and ask him.
His phone number is on the Council website.
November 26, 2011 at 6:35 AM
Pilling lost all credibility when he went against Greens stated policy and voted for C60, embarrassing a number of upper house elected Greens members, including Barber. Not a smart move considering the gang didn’t even need him. Maybe he deserved another chance but he doesn’t seem to have the smarts for politics (in my opinion).
November 25, 2011 at 2:54 PM
How about quid pro quid – give us c60 and you’ll get a bit on environment – not too much though – just a touch here and there to keep the plebs happy
November 25, 2011 at 5:59 PM
The CEO doesn’t run the city entirely, the councillors do have a lot of power if they are united. If the CEO and the councillors are united, progressive things can happen. We can become a nation of tribes battling each other to the detriment. Or become a version of a functioning democracy. Take your choice. Waiting for others to give you what you want will never happen. Get out there in the real world and change it.