From the flood of comments we’ve received on the Newton reappointment and upcoming Mayoral election there is clearly keen interest out there in the community. We’ve basically summarised the range of comments and present them below as a series of questions – many of which need to be answered by councillors themselves since the Councillor Code of Conduct tells us that the public has a right to hear the reasons and logic behind each councillor’s vote! We therefore welcome their responses and also ask readers to provide their ‘answers’ to the following:
- Why didn’t the majority of councillors choose to advertise?
- Why after 12 stormy years with Newton at the helm did the gang choose to reappoint?
- What really went on behind the closed doors of the Special Committee?
- Should the public really believe that these councillors are so enamoured with Newton’s performance that the decision to reappoint was inevitable – keeping in mind GESAC; more bullying allegations; more Municipal Inspector investigations; more ombudsman’s investigations; more rate rises; more service charges; more planning objections; more lawyers than you can count; more secrecy and lack of transparency; general discontent in the community, etc. etc. etc.
- Were any (undue) pressures brought to bear as in 2005?
- What will be the legacy of another two years of Newton?
- Will Hyams, if elected Mayor, enhance governance or continue along the same slippery path as Esakoff?
- Why has Lobo so dramatically aligned himself with the gang?
- Do any of these 9 councillors deserve re-election if they stand?
- Will Liberal party backers/supporters of certain councillors be dismayed at the current turn of events?
- Will the presumed ongoing Municipal Inspector’s and Ombudsman’s reports be another whitewash?
- Has this Council reached its lowest point in the eyes of the community?
Glen Eira Debates 
November 30, 2011 at 10:21 AM
A qyestion for Glen Eira. Will the ALP backers/supporters of Cr Magee be dismayed with the current turn of events.
November 30, 2011 at 10:38 AM
Probably!
November 30, 2011 at 10:34 AM
Local councils are not popular anywhere. Watching the news a couple of days ago there was the ridiculous redevelopment of Swanston St. at the projected cost of over $25 million. The result? Confusion, risk and disbelief by pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists. Local governments everywhere seem to be totally incompetent to run any program professionally and intelligently. Having said all that, I do think that Glen Eira is a stand out in terms of its notoriety and chequered past and continued conflict. I don’t know of any other organisation that has had so many public brawls and so many official investigations. This history has worked to the advantage of Newton. The over-riding mantra is now one of superficial unity and the inculcation of the belief that all councillors must toe the line publicly. The result is more decisions made in secret and a hypocrisy which is staggering. None of this should be happening if the Local Government Act’s intention of an open, democratic system is adhered to. Reprobate is certainly correct – secrecy is not written into its provisions. The reverse is true. Yet, we’re stuck with an ethos and culture that give a lie to these ideas. The architect of this mentality can only be Newton and his directors since he is the one granted authority to determine agendas and to declare what is, and is not, “confidential”. What desperately needs to happen is for councillors to over-ride these questionable practices by simply passing a resolution that the item is no longer “confidential”. I maintain that more harm is done to council’s reputation and standing by the insistence on secrecy than by disclosure. The public’s disapproval is only increased when we’re alerted to the practices of other councils. Glen Eira does not fair well via such comparisons.
It also does not fair well when officer reports are continually bereft of detail which ought to justify recommendations and councillors do themselves no credit when they meekly accept sub-standard work without comment. I think residents need to know that what is being proposed has been thoroughly researched and quantified. Most policies in Glen Eira are at least 80% motherhood, feel good statements. The vairous bits of legislation specify that the social, economic and environmental aspects be considered in most policy decisions. I can’t remember any policy which itemises these aspects and includes such things as costs, efficiencies, social impact, and so forth. I also don’t think that this is asking for too much from an administration mandated to provide value to residents – economically and socially. Without bottom line figures it is impossible to assess and then to estimate improvements – as the recent post on the Auditor General’ criticisms of reporting standards outlined.
All of the above probably only touches the surface of the ills that beset this council. I fervently hope that at the next election those candidates who stand are not lawyers but businessmen, accountants, activists, and individuals who honestly believe in the importance of sound governance and accountability.
November 30, 2011 at 10:43 AM
It’s not Lobo fault. The gang seem to have lost Pilling, they have just latched onto the only one that is vulnerable, lobo will come to realise this in the not to distant further. Of course by then it will be too late for Glen Eira, It’s time Lobo makes the hard decision and pulls this council into line. With all his business and banking experience he must see what is happening around him. On one hand you have the ruling right wing Liberals, and on the other side four who seem to be the ones who want change. Only Lobo can give us residence what we have wanted for so long a council that listens to its ratepayers. Time for Pilling, Magee, Forge and Penhalluriack to start working together hopefully with the help of Lobo. Only then will we be heard, and our prayers answered.
November 30, 2011 at 3:53 PM
In some ways, asking Lobo to pull the council into line, is both too late and and merely passing the buck. If these four councillors had been resolute and public in their opposition to much of what has gone on, then things may have been different long ago. I accept that politics involves trade offs and much mutual back scratching. However, fundamentals such as transparency and accountability should never be bargained away. The constant votes of ‘unanimous’ over the past 3 years shows how much bargaining has gone on, or, how little these four councillors really understood as to their roles and their values. If votes would have consistently been 5 to 4 on numerous issues, then I doubt very much whether the gang would still maintain their stranglehold. Public criticism can do wonders to loosen entrenched views, especially with elections looming. Voting consistently with the gang has only empowered them and given them total immunity from criticism. What I’m suggesting is that the more people come to see the divided nature of this council, then the greater the opportunities for change, reform and revolution.
November 30, 2011 at 12:18 PM
If you want to know about 2005 you should refer your query to former Councillor and Mayor Dorothy Marwick, the Councillor who late in 2004 changed her mind on Andrew’s re-appointment without, in my opinion adequate explanation. Also you should refer your query to a former Liberal local member and question why the 5 Liberals voted as a block. Further this Council acted within the LGAct in re-appointment. Democracy at work. What stinks is the secrecy. They, the Councillors are a rable just like the 2005 lot. The big difference is that in 2005 some decent Councillors let the Community know what was traspiring, but this lot, to a man, are too gutless to provide us with any information.
November 30, 2011 at 12:28 PM
He now owes the gang his job and future, the pay back has to be proportional, that’s why they backed this lame horse.
It divides, and they can rule on both levels.
With the CEO completely compromised being indebted.
This is very smart but ruthless politics from this community of councilors.
Get what you can, when you can.
This is slash and burn politics with little or no regards to the wider community.
November 30, 2011 at 5:34 PM
Q.1 – scared shitless
Q2 – scared shitless
Q3 – More shit
Q4 – cos Paul Burke is a great con man and they’re scared shitless
Q5 – at a guess – yes
Q6 – more shit
Q7 – same as esakoff
Q8 – 1 does – Penhalluriack
Q9 – Yup – Newton’s a labour protege
Q10 – Yup
Q11 – Yup
November 30, 2011 at 7:00 PM
One woul like to think Paul Burke stayed well away from the re-appointment process. They must have engaed a ring in.