Glen Eira Debates

Below is the amended version of the post from Cr. Pilling’s blog on the ‘discussions’ re the GESAC basketball allocations. The original post has been altered (without identifying the changes) and we now have this new version of history and thinking:

“I will post details of the motion passed and comments re item 12.8 GESAC Multi-Use Courts that involves the allocation of basketball as soon as publically available which normally takes several days.

Council considered the issue over the the past two nights after reaching the 11pm time limit at the Tuesday night meeting.

The main problem in my view has been the design and oblectives of the original process. I feel the emphasis was too much on fees and ‘future marketing plans’.

I have no critisism of the way officers administered the expression of interest process but question the criteria and objectives that have led everyone to the present situation.

Like the increased childcare fee issue I feel Council has taken a too narrow economic rationalist approach at the expense of genuine community need. This really goes to the heart of the matter. There is certainly a need to review the whole process for future basketball allocations at GESAC in the new year.

please note- the posting date can be a day behind”.

COMMENT

• Is this a mea culpa to placate Newton and Burke? – ie. no criticism of officers?
• Questioning ‘criteria and objectives’ is surely questioning the planning/strategic direction of the whole project and who set these criteria and objectives? If officers then the blame must be laid at their feet. If councillors, then they are all implicated in the failure to meet community needs. More relevant, is the issue of councillor involvement in the creation of these ‘criteria and objectives’. Did councillors know what was happening? If they didn’t were they derelict in their duty?
• Is it ‘intellectually dishonest’ for Pilling to amend his original blog posting without indicating that this is now a new, updated version?
• And what does the last sentence really mean – that there still is no decision and that this will linger on until ‘sometime in the new year’?

A reader has just alerted us to the latest posting on Cr. Pilling’s blog. It concerns the GESAC basketball allocations and the failure to reach a decision after nearly 7 months of lawyers, discussions, mediation and teeth gnashing. There was another assembly of councillors following the public reception last night. As our reader stated in his comment, there is obviously great division and disarray in this ‘cohort’ of councillors. Whether or not a decision was finally made last night we won’t know until the official minutes come out.

On this point Pilling wrote: “I will post details of the motion passed and comments re item 12.8 GESAC Multi-Use Courts that involves the allocation of basketball as soon as publically available which normally takes several days.”

We find such a statement mind boggling. Why can’t the decision be announced before the minutes are made public? After all, this has only been dragging on for 7 months! Secondly, the motion in camera must have been to make the decision public – so it is technically no longer ‘confidential’. Yet, Cr Pilling obviously is a real stickler for Newton’s and Burke’s made up rules – rather than serving the needs of the community first. All it takes councillors is a smidgeon of courage and there is change, progress, and an end to autocratic rule by bureaucrats. The community deserves such councillors – not ones who regard the letter of the law as more important than the spirit of the law. There’s a name for that – pusillanimity!

At Tuesday night’s council meeting Penhalluriack asked officers the following in relation to petitions and the guidelines which they are meant to follow. This is what happened:

PENHALLURIACK: stated that Council website said that petitions must be handed in 2 working days prior to Council Meetings. ‘why this lead time is required’ and ‘what is the legal grounds for this requirement…..(On Nov. 22^nd a petition of 523 signatures was tabled. Penhalluriack read out the petition.)….’submitted 2 days (before council meeting and) signatures checked by organisers.) ‘Has this number and what number been confirmed’ (since the minutes of 22^nd November stated ‘unverified number’)….’will the correct number be incorporated into the minutes of this Council Meeting under Item 5…..?’

BURKE: ‘Petitions (are submitted) in the manner which Council has determined….council accepted the minutes that you’re referring to at Agenda Item 4 of tonight’s meeting’.

PENHALLURIACK: Stated that his question wasn’t answered. Repeated the question and asked for response in writing.

BURKE: Taken on notice and repeated that ‘…petitions are treated the way council wants them treated….reading over my notes (minutes of 22^nd November) …were adopted unanimously’

PENHALLURIACK: ‘I ask when did council determine this’ (and asked again that his questions be answered).

BURKE: Claimed that he had seen ‘so many names crossed out…in a way…(people)realise what they’ve signed’ (and changed their minds).

INTERJECTION FROM GALLERY: ‘I crossed out those names…..I’m challenging what Mr. Burke said’

PENHALLURIACK: Stated that he believed all the signatures had been checked by organisers and assumes as a result of the comment from gallery that the names were crossed out to ensure only those residents from Glen Eira were listed as final signatories.

ESAKOFF: ‘Mr Burke will get back to you on the detail…..’

COMMENTS:

Councillors were sent the following email upon receipt of the petition at the council service desk – “a petition for tomorrow night’s Council Meeting was delivered at council reception this morning at 8.30am, thereby meeting the requirements of 2 working days. Receipt of the petition was signed off by Callum McPherson at the front desk.

The 523 valid signatures thus far were collected within the space of only two weeks and we anticipate the arrival of many more completed forms in the coming days. These will be presented to council in due course. Residents are solidly behind the need to advertise the CEO petition”.

We’ve highlighted the phrase ‘valid signatures’ because organisers did check all names and found that some people who did not reside in Glen Eira had signed. They obviously agreed with the statement and their place of abode was only discovered AFTER they had signed. These names were later removed via the use of a 12 inch ruler and pen, marking a very straight line through these names. CLEARLY THESE CROSSOUTS COULD NOT HAVE BEEN MADE BY INDIVIDUALS FREEHAND. The copies clearly substantiate this.

Paul Burke’s ‘surmising’ of motives, as an excuse for not publishing the number of signatories in the last set of minutes, is thus not only scurrilous, but devious, deliberate and extends far beyond his official capacity. He is not there to editorialise and attempt to denigrate the authenticity of the petitioners and organisers. As come commentators have already written – did Mr Burke also check every single signature on the 6000 plus that was submitted by the Northern Memorial Pool, or the 700 plus signatures from the McKinnon Basketball Association? Again, we note, that Esakoff, Hyams and Lipshutz must go down in history as the only councillors who refused to accept a legitimate petition from constituents.

More importantly, Burke’s failure to answer Penhalluriack’s questions should be censured in the strongest terms. Councillors have every right to ask whatever they deem part of their duty and responsibility. Burke’s failure to answer such questions again reveals exactly what is wrong with the governance of Glen Eira and why the silence of all councillors on such issues is to be denounced.

Jamie Hyams was appointed Mayor tonight with Neil Pilling elected as Deputy Mayor. Following is the sequence of events –

Paul Burke announced that he had not received any apologies although he noted that Oscar Lobo was not present.

Andrew Newton read out the necessary procedures and protocols indicating that if the vote was tied he would toss a coin.

Lipshutz nominated Hyams

Penhalluriack nominated Magee

The vote was Hyams – Lipshutz, Esakoff, Tang and Hyams

The vote for Magee – Penhalluriack, Forge, Pilling and Magee

The vote was 4 to 4. Penhalluriack called for a division. Newton said “No, the vote is four all – Section 8 in the procedure of the Local Law states……(read out the relevant section which basically stated that another poll must take place)…if tied….determined by lot by Chief Executive Officer’. Stated that tossing a coin was ‘the most transparent way’. Penhalluriack said ‘I still call for a division’…Newton replied that ‘there is no provision in the local law’ for a division. Penhalluriack then argued that in common law and many other forms a division is allowed. Newton responded that he’s following the local law and that he ‘doesn’t set the local law, councillors do’.

Called second vote. Same result. Newton explained that he would stand in the middle of chamber and that the first nominated councillor would call either “heads’ or “tails” whilst the coin was in the air. No one would be allowed to touch the coin once it landed. Tossed the coin. Hyams called heads and it came up heads. Applause.

Deputy Mayor – Esakoff nominated Lipshutz. He accepted

Penhalluriack nominated Magee. Magee did not accept.

Tang nominated Pilling. Accepted. Vote 5 to 3. Lipshutz’s votes were Hyams, Esakoff, and himself. Pilling’s votes were: Magee, Tang, Forge, Penhalluriack, and himself.

SPEECHES

LIPSHUTZ: congratulated Hyams. Admired his ‘attention to detail’…’dot every ‘I’ cross every ‘t’….so conscientious you read everything….(only councillor who has read the full annual report)…you devote your attention to council….fair person….(know) council protocol and council policy…bring great strength to the council…..will be a great mayor…..you will be a healer….approach all councillors in a fair ….as did Margaret Esakoff previously….(congratulated Esakoff) for a wonderful year …..in trying circumstances…..which would have beaten many other people….look forward to our year, a year of change, a year of policy, decision making….

ESAKOFF: congratulated Mayor…’very well deserved honour’…’total dedication…. diligence….has been recognised and I have no qualms in handing over the reins…. Your integrity and your professionalism …..will make us (Council) and community proud….clear  understanding of role….policy, governance, procedures and common sense will hold you in good stead….(Can do the job because of) warmth, understanding, empathy…..(for all people)….

TANG: congratulated Hyams and said that circumstances ‘are not befitting a man and councillor of your stature’…conscientious and diligent….those words are understatements….(we’re) better off for having you amongst us…amongst the 9 councillors where would we be….we are enriched by having you amongst our cohort….inclusive councillor….made every effort to consult with all councillors….community (as well)…protocols and issues and taken the time to discuss with each (of us)….(wished him and Pilling success) ‘in what has been a trying year….(Esakoff) has done a superb job in those circumstances….diligent, visible mayor…whilst having to deal with a number of other issues at the town hall….(congratulate) effort she’s made to represent the community in the face of very difficult circumstances….

PILLING: thanked people for support. …’It’s been a trying year….(esakoff) has had a very good year in trying to bring council together….problem tonight….two good candidates….a difficult decision….(Hyams) attention to detail and passion for this council….look forward to working with you….

PENHALLURIACK: congratulated Hyams and said he ‘works beyond the square’….(was an annus horribilus)….(repeated his comment that) when a leopard dies he leaves his spots; when a man dies he leaves his reputation…During the past 12 months I have been accused of bullying. I don’t believe I’m a bully…..(ended with congratulations)

FORGE: congratulated Hyams…’it’s been a very difficult couple of weeks…different candidates’ (but both adding to the) ‘future of Glen Eira’….(Hyams) ‘attention to detail is incredible…wiseness and knowledge regarding how a council should be run….fantastic asset….I look forward to what we discussed…you’re aware of some of my views…I look forward to working with you this year…. (Congratulated Pilling)…’you’re a very gentle quiet person, you’re coming out of yourself….enjoyed working with you over the last 10 months….

MAGEE: ‘City of Glen Eira is in good hands….attention to detail is second to none…(knowledge of LGA had Magee ringing him for advice)….’helped with the right wording (on a motion)…that is the sort of person he is….Pilling is a very fitting deputy mayor….(asked to support Pilling) and ‘without a seond of thought I was happy to do so….fairest, most decent human beings….care for environment is something we can all aspire to…..Esakoff….a year that I would not wish on anyone…(last few terms and experience) I doubt that any new mayor would have handled it with the dignity….compassion and persistence….and ruthlessness when you make a decision (Magee respects this even when Esakoff cuts him short)….we are a good cohort of councillors….I really like the debates that get fiery….(debates)…I enjoy that part ….people getting red in the face….angry…because that’s when the city knows that they’re getting a true decision….as long as that happens…..I will be a very proud councillor…..

HYAMS: Acknowledge directors, MPS (Southwick, Miller) and former councillor Dunstan….Deeply honoured…(thanked colleagues for) trust shown in me by electing me….wasn’t ideal way to get elected….2 quality candidates….Role …is ‘first amongst equals’….beyond that no more power than any other councillor….can’t achieve anything without support of councillor group…working together this council has achieved a lot…..best reflected in the results of the latest Community Satisfaction survey (went through some of the percentages) –‘only 14% said our council needed improvement, whilst 54%’ (were good or excellent)…(itemised lowest rates, highest capital expenditure, service centre excellence, parks are tops)…’this is a tribute to our councillor group…’together create a whole that is far better than the sum of its parts’….’while we may disagree…we do so with respect for each other’s views….all the same aim….best for the community….(talked about Tang and Esakoff and that they) ‘leave rather large shoes to fill…Steven’s grasp of issues….solving problems….tribute…(became barrister today)….Margaret has done nothing short of a fantastic job….in trying circumstances…..dedication….passion for the community….determination to adhere to the principles of good governance….and grace…..have been inspirational….I’ll do my best to emulate (this example)…(On Deputy he voted for Lipshutz because) ‘he brings a lot of leadership to this council….two quality candidates…very pleased to have Cr. Pilling….(we complement each other)….decent man…..

‘Successes…are attributed to our dedicated…(professional staff)…lead by our CEO ….they bring high levels of expertise to our deliberations….appreciate their sound and often canny advice….(shouldn’t) rest on our laurels….we need to strive for continual improvement….rates as low as possible….facilities needed by our community…we need to ensure our community is aware of (services)….(and that community realise they have a) stake and input….challenges (faced include lack of open space; 5 year council plan with community; planning scheme review that will protect amenity whilst accepting)’need to accommodate our ever growing population….economic responsible…Caulfield Racecourse….far better utilised by the public…highlight…opening of our magnificent (GESAC)…looking forward to (Duncan McKinnon pavilion finished, bicycle plan)….”

Thanked family in conclusion, especially grandmother aged 93.

Hyams invited gallery for refreshment but said that Councillors however ‘have another matter that we need to deal with in private’.

Item: Right of Reply

Penhalluriack read his ‘right of reply’ (published in the agenda) concerning an earlier request (November 2^nd) as to why numerous Officer reports had not been tabled at ordinary council meetings and why Esakoff’s statement had subsequently ‘disassociated’ Council from his statement.

TANG: raised a ‘point of order’. Stated that what Penhalluriack said contains ‘a reference to council’s actions’ and ‘as a member of council’ he wants to ‘correct’ this and also Penhalluriack’s correction of the Mayor, although ‘I do not feel it is my place to do that’. So raised a ‘point of order’ requesting ‘Right of Reply’ on Penhalluriack’s commentary where he would address issues concerning council ‘generally’.

ESAKOFF: ‘Yes you can Cr Tang. Go right ahead’

TANG:  Repeated Penhalluriack’s statement that council has no reason to disassociate itself from anything he had said and quoted the last section. ‘I think that’s a reference to what council’s done…I don’t accept that entirely…..(long servicing councillors) have received a number of the reports that Cr Penhalluriack was referring to…..there is an argument that council (should have them tabled at ordinary meetings) but that argument weighs against every one of us as councillors I don’t think it’s in Cr Penhalluriack’s ability to disassociate himself from that (since as a member of council he’d have to include himself as having breached the local government act)….’if we want a report at an ordinary council meeting we will specify that’…..I am of the belief that there is no requirement….in the Local Government Act…(also went on to say that Penhalluriack’s claim that he hasn’t received any advice from councillors is) ‘clearly a false statement….because I believe….I received a circular….which identified….where these reports went….I thought I received the same circular as every other councillor received.’

COMMENT

There is clearly a double set of standards operating at this council, especially when it comes to Cr Penhalluriack. Cr. Penhalluriack’s Right of Reply was available (for the first time ever) in the agenda papers. This means that every councillor would have had prior notice of what he was about to say. Under the ‘no surprises policy’ the Local Law also states :

“The statement must be made in writing and included in the notice paper for the next ordinary meeting of Council except where the comments referred to in subclause 238(1) have arisen since the printing of the agenda”.

Tang’s response, and Esakoff’s complicity in allowing him to raise both a point of order and a Right of Reply are unconscionable and contravene Council’s own set of laws. It is absolutely clear that there are one set of rules for Penhalluriack and another for the gang. We will expand-

1. Esakoff is mandated to provide reasons for allowing Tang to raise a point of order and agreeing to it. She did not.
2. If Tang has a legitimate point of order, then this should have been raised BEFORE Penhalluriack spoke and NOT AFTER – especially since he knew exactly what Penhalluriack was going to say.
3. The point of order morphed into a ‘Right of Reply’. Why wasn’t Tang’s ‘Right of Reply’ published in the agenda together with Penhalluriack’s? Did Tang, in effect give prior notice as required by the Local Law? If not, then why was he allowed to get away with this tactic? Why did no other councillor and especially the Mayor rule him out of order?
4. Tang’s statement is an absolute nonsense and designed to not only cloud the issue that Penhalluriack raised but to protect Newton. The facts are clear: Not all requests for reports are tabled in ordinary council meetings – that is what Penhalluriack said. Esakoff confirmed this in her statement when she admitted that reports are often presented in assembly meetings. Tang also confirmed this. Hence Penhalluriack’s statements are not ‘false’, nor ‘incorrect’, but truthful and accurate. Hence his statement that council has no reason to disassociate itself from his statement is also correct and legitimate. What is far from legitimate according to Council’s own idiosyncratic ‘no suprises’ rules, is Tang’s ‘point of order’ and then ‘Right of Reply’. We believe there was absolutely no need for it and surmise that the only motive could have been to defuse (and smear?) Penhalluriack. We also believe that this was an orchestrated tactic given Esakoff’s ruling in allowing such a statement. This entire episode again speaks volumes as to the hypocrisy and double standards operating at Glen Eira.

The gallery included many men, women and children from the McKinnon Basketball Association. The following report on the discussion focuses on the decision whether or not to hold the discussion on court allocation in public, or restrict to in camera. It was part of the response to Committee Meeting Minutes on GESAC.

LIPSHUTZ: Gesac is ‘unfortunately behind schedule….(due to) builder’s delay….probably be able to make an opening in February…..basketball courts are pretty much completed….(pool area) will still take some time….(paying) liquidated damages in a large amount…our project managers are on top of every aspect….number of issues where (builders have had to redo work) because we are insisting….that GESAC will be of the highest standard….”

MAGEE: “there’s nobody more disappointed….than myself ….GESAC behind schedule….we were all hoping that GESAC would be open on the 1st December….I’m actually quite comfortable that it’s late….Council has a number of senior engineers working for us on site…..(sometimes they decide that ) what is happening is not good enough…..stop, redesign, pull out….it’s crucially important that we don’t rush GESAC….just quickly patch it up and get it finished….(handed over and then) for the next umpteem years we’re continually trying to patch it….GESAC….in my opinion is the state of the art…..(many basketballers in the gallery) and I can whet your appetite by telling you that the courts are the best that I have ever seen….it is a world class centre, it is made of world class materials…we have to be patient because we have to do it properly….there’s an item of business to be considered later on in camera (12.8) and that’s to do with basketball …..Council is not able to deal with that item in the ordinary council meeting…..that item must be considered….dealt with in camera….I thank you all very much for coming….but unfortunately we can’t talk about the allocation of basketball in the open part of the council meeting….but I can assure you there will be a report…..and a report on the voting…..I would have loved to have been able to do more tonight, but it’s an item for camera and it will stay an item to be considered in camera….

PILLING: ” I thank everyone for coming here tonight….because of confidential nature we have to do this privately….the results of our decisions tonight will be available in council minutes when published ….It’s a bit disappointing I understand but advice is to do things by the letter and certain councillors are resolved to do that….great to see (people) committed and passionate….I’m hopeful it will be a good outcome for the community.

COMMENT: the really sad aspect of this outcome is not merely the disregard for all those people who crammed into the gallery tonight and then left disappointed. But what these comments reveal is that once again, decisions are made behind closed doors (ie. ‘advice’, ‘certain councillors’, ‘resolved’). After all the pronouncements on Cr. Pilling’s blog site, it would have been uplifting to actually have a motion put to the floor that the item be discussed in chamber. By failing to move any motion, and meekly accepting what was obviously decided previously, residents are again left to ponder what has happened to transparency and accountability – although it would not be too hard to guess which councillors might have opposed the removal of ‘confidential status’. Please note, Cr. Lobo was absent. It would therefore have been a very interesting vote – probably 4/4 and Esakoff forced to use her casting vote – again embarrassing to a council that prides itself on being a cosy ‘club’ with no division!

We will report on the other items in the next few days.

We thought residents would like a ‘bird’s eye’ view of what has been happening at Bailey’s Reserve. First off, we present the BEFORE AND AFTER LOOK.

Next there is a slideshow where the size and scale of GESAC may be truly appreciated.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

We’ve copied the latest post, plus a comment, from Cr Pilling’s blog and congratulate him on the initiative shown in this alternative motion.

“As reported widely and here in previous postings there has been an ongoing issue throughout the past six months of resolving the weekend allocation usage at our great new indoor court facilities at the soon to be opened Glen Eira Sports and Aquatic Centre(GESAC) in Bentleigh.

This wonderful new $45m community facility,the largest ever built in the municipality, was primarily funded by local ratepayers with significant contributions from both the Federal and State govts. The original expression of interest offer to the Oakleigh Warriors effectively meant that in excess of 1400 local players in the Mckinnon Basketball Assoc would not be playing this season at GESAC- this situation I have consistantly stated is unacceptable.

This Tuesday night under item 12.8 GESAC MULTI-USE COURTS of the Council meeting agenda I will be supporting the following proposed alternative motion.

1.That council notes the report

2.That council sets the seasonal hire rate for basketball at GESAC at $40.00 per court per hour.

3.That council awards the Friday tenancy (6pm to 11pm) and Sunday (9am to 11pm) to The Oakleigh Garden State Warriors Basketball Association.

4.That council awards the Saturday (8am to 11pm) tenancy to the McKinnon Basketball Association.

5.That all court fees are payable regardless of court use. 6.That council requires a bond of $10,000.00 per court payable on signing of the lease agreement. 7.That if either association is unable to fill its allocated times, it must first offer that time to the other before it can be offered to any other association, body or individual. 8.That this resolution be incorporated in the public minutes of this meeting. (if in camera)

Will also support a division (a recording of how Councillors vote) on this item and the tabling of this item in the public (non-confidential) section of the meeting.

This is an equitable,reasonable and balanced proposal that caters for both associations and allows for all local kids, families and clubs to use our great new facilities at GESAC. It sensibly balances financial and community responsibilties. I will be encouraging all Councillors to support this motion”.

Reader’s comment: “Some questions – why should the Warriors get 19 hours of court time and the McKinnon basketballers only 15 hours – and this all on the same day? Why should this be held in camera? If Newton suggests this, then councillors should overturn the decision with a council resolution. Simple if councillors can get together 5 votes.”

Following several comments we decided to do a little bit of investigating. Readers will remember the Queen’s Avenue issue and residents’ call for something to be done in regards to the overgrown vegetation and lack of real footpath which forced pedestrians and joggers onto busy Queen’s Avenue. The issue was therefore one of safety.

With typical convoluted logic, the officers’ report tabled on the 2^nd November 2011 recommended, in part, the erection of a barrier in order to ‘force’ residents and joggers to use the other side of Queen’s Avenue. This barrier has now been erected for the princely sum of at least $15,000!!!!

What is quite ridiculous about this barrier is that the very officers’ report which purported to support ‘safety’ included the following paragraphs:

“Safety

Since Council called for this Report, Council has involved the Crime Prevention staff of Victoria Police. They do not support any changes which would increase the use of the strip of land without increasing safety by significantly reducing the risk of ‘ambush’ from vegetation and clearly separating pedestrians from vehicular traffic along Queen’s Avenue.”

“To improve safety along Queens Avenue, officers have previously recommended that Council move to encourage pedestrians to use the footpath on the east side of the road. This is because some pedestrians continue to use the informal track on the west side where they risk tripping and/or stepping into on-coming traffic.”

Solution? Put a barrier in to ensure 100% that pedestrians have to step into traffic! And pay $15,000 for the privilege. What should also be borne in mind is that BECAUSE of the overgrown vegetation, pedestrians will not see the barrier until they are upon it. How’s that for shrewd ‘risk management’ and prudent expenditure of public monies? And we have to ask, how much would a little pruning have cost?

This slideshow requires JavaScript.