COUNCILLOR QUESTIONS
Penhalluriack’s question, as included in the agenda items, reads: “The tabling of a petition by constituents of this city was not accepted unanimously, but was opposed by certain councillors at the council meeting on the 22nd November 2011. A petition is one of the oldest and most sacred means of expression used by citizens. Tradition dictates that even the King must pay heed to his petitioners. I ask those Councillors on what grounds those (sic) they opposed its presentation to this Council?”
HYAMS: ‘aware that petition was being promoted through a blog’… (that always presents an) ‘unremittingly negative’ (view of council)……(gave example of Leader reporting on Community Satisfaction results and the blog printed this and not the later recant which was only referred to in a comment and this was to support) ‘a ludicrous conspiracy theory’ (about the Leader and Council. Went on to state that if the blog owners ‘have the confidence (about ‘accusations’)…’they would put their names to them….(which says a lot for) ‘their honesty and integrity that they hide behind anonymity…..(Regurgitated the Community Satisfaction Survey where 86% assessed council performance as ‘excellent’ and this ‘speaks volumes for the objectivity….of that blog….there has never been a positive post about Council…..unrepresentative ….of community sentiment…..(Thus the people who signed the petition) ‘were given misinformation in order to procure their signatures’ (and that’s why Hyams won’t accept the petition)…..’Question implies that petition should be received as a matter of course……we have the discretion to choose not to receive them….I chose to exercise this discretion…..Councillors should carefully consider every decision they make (and shouldn’t automatically accept everything).
LIPSHUTZ: ‘I concur with your comments’
ESAKOFF: ‘I also concur with your comments’.
PUBLIC QUESTIONS
One question relating to insurance for sporting groups was declared inadmissable due to ‘harassment’. Penhalluriack then rose and asked for an explanation of why the question is regarded as ‘harassment’. Hyams responded that council had ‘received over 130 questions’ in the space of a year ‘on one topic’ after which ‘the Council determined….(harassment and) this is another question along the same lines’ (therefore harassment again)…..
Penhalluriack then made the point that ‘harassment’ is from an individual and not about a subject…’a topic can’t harass’….’and isn’t the question also’ directed to Cr. Lipshutz?
HYAMS: repeated the 130 questions business and said that the intention was to harass council ‘until councillors saw things the way’ (the group wanted them to see it)….’on that basis we decided it was harassment’.
PENHALLURIACK: ‘May I move dissent’.(from the ruling)?
HYAMS: ‘Yes, if you can find somewhere in the Local Law that allows you to do that’
PILLING: wanted to ask a question. Wanted a judgement on a clause in the Local Law
BURKE: basically (mumbled) that the chairperson has authority to rule. Burke then read out the followiing questions which included one to Lipshutz asking whether he would apologise for potentially misleading council via his statements of December 2010.
Lipshutz responded that he hadn’t mislead council so no apology ‘is required’.
Another question asked about the Facebook page published on this website and whether the public would be correct in concluding that there was a conflict of interest.
LIPSHUTZ: ‘never bother to read the blog…..(never) ‘anything positive about the council’….(when reading the blog you have to conclude that council is incompetent)….(reiterated about the Community satisfaction rating and ‘hiding behind anonymity’… (this anonymity would not protect the blog and moderators) ‘from damages claims….’I do not read the blog….(if his son’s name did appear on the blog then he was ‘unaware’ (and did not) ‘authorise’….’you have little knowledge or no knowledge of how Facebook operates’…..
TANG: wanted to ask Lipshutz a question
HYAMS: stated that there was no facility within the Local Law for councillors to question other councillors
BURKE: read out next question which asked whether council had finally validated the signatures for the petition and for the final number of signatories.
HYAMS: Stated that the petition had already been dealt with on November 22nd and that it wasn’t council’s ‘role to validate the signatures’ on the petition.
PENHALLURIACK: that he had a ‘second response’ to the question. ‘I dissent….(referred to council website and the need to submit petitions 2 days prior to council meetings and the purpose would be so) ‘that officers can count and validate the sigatures….I am disappointed that the petitioners…..(weren’t counted since it sets a poor precedent for future petitions) ….‘subject of a petition should be irrelevant to the way it is handled‘…(here the subject matter) ‘has meant that petitioners have been treated with less respect’ …’for my part I apologise for that’.
Glen Eira Debates 
February 9, 2012 at 4:56 PM
Hyams has just shown himself up to be the sycophant I’ve always considered him to be.
Every legitimately presented petition to the State Parliament is tabled. Should there be misinformation members use their positions to correct it and/or if they oppose it respond accordingly. Council should not have the right to deny legitimate petitions being tabled.
This is just another example of Council treating residents with contempt.
As for putting down (I assume) this blog for its so-called negativity, Hyams, what about exercising the limits of your brainpower and assessing whether the so-called negativity has any validity. Too much to ask?
As for the ad hominem past master Lipshutz and the person who was Mayor when the Council was dismissed for incompetence – they act true to form.
Please some decent honourable folk who will actively work in the best interests of ratepayers stand for election. You’re sorley needed.
February 9, 2012 at 5:03 PM
For a lawyer Hyam’s comments show total incompetence if not outright slander. Honesty and credibility have nothing to do with anonymity. The law gives people the right to remain anonymous if they wish to. As a lawyer Hyams should know this and he would be well advised to instruct council that under their ‘complaints’ section they should not insist on people putting their names and addresses to their complaints since this goes against the precepts of the Information Privacy Act. People are allowed to complain as much as they like – they legally and morally do not have to put their names to anything.
What riles me even more is the slanderous comment that misinformation was given to over 500 individuals who agreed with the statement that the CEO position should have been advertised only to “procure” their signature. I signed the petition and would sign it again in an instant. I read the blurb and agreed fully. There was no coercion and no opinion offered. This insults all those who collected these signatures as well as those who signed it.
The continuing and appalling governance of this council is brilliantly displayed with the threats of defamation. Truth is the best defence and as far as I’m concerned this is only another example of the bullying and intimidation that is practised when the spotlight is shone on those who wish to remain in the dark. Lipshutz may not read the blog, but thousands of others do judging by the growing hit counts. If councillors had any brains then they would realise that the writing is on the wall and that residents are very concerned with countless issues. They would see that they are being judged and that the verdict is not flattering.
February 9, 2012 at 5:30 PM
Hyams, Lipshutz, Esakoff – the unholy triumvirate. Lipshutz complains about being called Mr. Stop complaining! You don’t deserve the title of Cr. That should be preserved for people with “integrity and honesty” not those that practise on a regular basis the “intellectual dishonesty” that is becoming habitual in this council.
February 9, 2012 at 7:16 PM
Now you can see who helped cause the 2005 Council sacking. But I guess Hyams and Esakoff are absolved because they were re-elected.Fools
February 9, 2012 at 9:00 PM
TANG: wanted to ask Lipshutz a question
HYAMS: stated that there was no facility within the Local Law for councillors to question other councillors.
Here’s the relevant clause from Glen Eira’s Local Laws.
“Councillor questions
231. A Councillor may ask a question of another Councillor or Councillors provided that it is in accordance with the Councillor Questions Policy as adopted from time to time.”
February 9, 2012 at 10:02 PM
Dear Glen Huntly,
think you will find that this applies to general questions, not when a councillor is answering a public question. On such occasions they are not permitted to be interrupted or interrogated – except by the chair possibly ruling them out of order.
February 9, 2012 at 10:15 PM
This is one hell of a sick council. None of them except Penhalluriack have my respect. Sitting there with their mouths glued shut allowing the likes of the bully boys to take pot shots at residents. Pilling’s interruption was useless. Where were you when you should have stood up and told them all to pull their heads in Pilling, Magee, Lobo, Forge? Pathetic and useless all of you. The only one with the guts and a shred of decency is Penhalluriack – and he’s supposed to be the bully according to Newton. What a sick lot you all are!
February 9, 2012 at 10:45 PM
If I hear this 86% of the survey once more I’m going to vomit all over the place. It’s got as much validity as the junk that comes out of this council – useless propaganda that is based on maybe 50 people answering biased questions. Tell me that that’s representative of the community. The blog tells it like it is and if councillors want to lie to themselves and pretend we’re all a really happy bunch of campers then they’re total idiots. They’ve got 2 choices do something proper to fix up this council or face the consequences. Planning is a disaster and for that thank Newton. Traffic is a nightmare and again thank Newton. Consultation is non existent and for that thank Newton, Burke, Hyams, Lipshutz, Tang and Esakoff. That these people gave him another two years is unbelievable. That’s something the public should never but never forget.
February 9, 2012 at 10:54 PM
Council liberally uses Council resources to promote an unremittingly positive view of Council. That viewpoint is well-catered for. The latest edition of Glen Eira News has the usual and requisite number of carefully stage-managed photos of councillors. The “unremittingly negative” view of Glen Eira Debates could be seen as an attempt to redess the substantial imbalance, and provide a more realistic view of what is going on. Misinformation is still misinformation when it comes from Paul Burke.
The repeated references to the Community Satisfaction Survey can’t surely be a coincidence. I’d love to be able to segment the results, in ways that Council have chosen not to. For example, partition the results into two sets: those who know who their Ward Councillors are, and those who don’t. If you’re not being targeted by multi-unit development you’re less likely to be pissed off at repeated Council failures to apply their own Planning Scheme.
I was curious, since Cr Lipschutz admitted he never bothers to read us, where or from whom he sourced the opinion that we’re unremittingly negative. Its a novel strategy to pretend you live in Camelot. It is unfortunate that careful analysis of Council and councillor behaviour comes across as negative, but the appropriate response is to improve the behaviour. Remember, its council that repeatedly breaches the Local Government Act, not us.
The handling of questions, once again, was dismal. I’d be quite prepared to have a beer with Cr Hyams, if he drinks, but that doesn’t stop me being critical when he stuffs up. As a reminder, Local Government Act leaves some aspects of how a Council conducts its meetings, and manages its municipality, to the Council to decide through its Local Law. Its not Council that determines whether a question constitutes harassment, but the Chairperson, Jamie in this case. The whole procedure is covered in s232. At least we now know some councillors didn’t want to accept a petition because they consider the people who signed were negative of council. Shame Cr Hyams didn’t disclose what he considered misinformation.
S232(2)(f) covers where a councillor disagrees with, or is aggrieved by, the response provided to a Public Question. Under it, Cr Penhalluriack should have sought leave from the Chairperson to make an appropriate brief explanatory statement rather than asking if he could “move dissent”. In responding as Cr Hyams did, he was either deliberately being unhelpful, or he’s just not very familiar with our Local Law.
Cr Hyams’ assertion “that there was no facility within the Local Law for councillors to question other councillors” is also concerning. Firstly there is an explicit item 11.3 Councillor Questions that is part of the Order of Business and appears in each Council Agenda. And then there’s s231: “A Councillor may ask a question of another Councillor or Councillors provided that it is in accordance with the Councillor Questions Policy as adopted from time to time.” If we have a Councillor Questions Policy, I couldn’t find it. Surely s231 contradicts Cr Hyams.
Now that Council has revealed they would like to sue me and others who dare to challenge them on their governance record, I intend to keep relative anonymity. While probably unrelated, none of us should have to put up with nuisance phonecalls at 3am in which we’re told our daughters are going to be raped. [Again, probably also unrelated, but when you object to a development, Council gives your personal details, including phone number, to the applicant.]
February 9, 2012 at 11:45 PM
Dear Reprobate,
the history of ‘councillor questions’ is a turgid, sleight of hand affair that goes back to 2006. Then, probably under the direction of certain administrators, Lipshutz and his cohorts, first attempted to introduce the ‘gag’ only to have it defeated. Staikos was dead set against it. The tactics however leave much to be desired. There was then another attempt (2006) – again not up front but included in the middle of a long amendment discussing the setting up of the local law committee –
9.1 LOCAL LAWS SUB-COMMITTEE
Crs Lipshutz/Ashmor
That Council;
‘Establish a Local Laws sub-committee on the following terms of reference.
Heading, role of committee, the role and function of the advisory committee is to review the Local Law and provide recommendations to Council in relation to Local Law amendments. Heading, membership, Council will appoint members on an annual basis. The advisory committee will comprise three Councillors
including Chairperson, the Mayor ex officio, Manager Compliance and external members as approved by Council. The advisory committee may make recommendations regarding the appointment of community representatives to the committee. Such appointments are subject to approval by Council.
Heading, meetings. Meetings shall be held at least four times annually, Heading, reporting. Advisory committee recommendations will be submitted to
the next appropriate ordinary Council meeting for determination. Heading,
sunset clause. Unless extended by Council resolution this advisory committee
shall cease to exist on 28 February 2007. The second part of the motion. The election of three Councillors to the sub committee take place forthwith. The
third part of the motion. The Local Laws review committee make recommendations as to the amendment of the meeting procedure Local Law
including provisions governing Councillor questions. The fourth part of the
motion. That pending the outcome of the review the Council adopt the
following interim policy on Councillor questions. Councillor question policy.
Preamble is; the Council being mindful of the provisions of the Whelan Report in particular the comments of Mr Whelan that; ‘the latter half of each Council Meeting comprises items that are initiated by Councillors or involve their participation without the guidance of reports and advice provided by Officers. During these stages the decision making process often becomes dysfunctional. This behaviour typically includes failing to work co-operatively,
engaging in disruptive conduct, mis-using sensitive information and harassing colleagues.’ In accepting that Councillor questions should be constructive and comply with the no surprises principle the policy is as follows; Councillors will be permitted to ask appropriate questions of other Councillors strictly subject to the following conditions.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING – MINUTES 10 APRIL 2006
278
9.1 LOCAL LAWS SUB-COMMITTEE (cont’d)
1. The question must be in relation to Council business or in relation to the actions of a Councillor in his or her capacity as a Councillor.
2. The question must be on notice and be received by the Chief Executive Officer by no later than 4pm on the Friday immediately prior to the Council
Meeting and the Chief Executive Officer shall thereupon immediately forward the question to the relevant Councillor.
3. The question must be as brief as possible and no discussion on the answer will be permitted.
Heading, inappropriate questions. The question will be deemed inappropriate upon the following grounds.
a. It breaches point 1 or 2 of the above policy.
b. It relates to matters ultra vires of the Council.
c. It is defamatory, indecent or may constitute discrimination, vilification, harassment or may place the Council at risk of legal action.
d. It refers to matters which if answered would breach any provision of the
Information Privacy Act 2000 Victoria, the Privacy Act 1988 Commonwealth or
the Confidentiality provisions of the Local Government Act.
e. It refers to matters which if answered would cause a Councillor to breach contractual confidential obligations the onus of proof of which is to be on the Councillor seeking to invoke such provision.’
DIVISION
Cr Staikos called for a Division on the voting of the Motion.
FOR
Cr Lipshutz Cr Staikos
Cr Ashmor Cr Robilliard
Cr Esakoff Cr Spaulding
Cr Whiteside
Cr Tang
Cr Feldman
AGAINST – Cr Staikos; Cr Robilliard; Cr Spaulding
On the basis of the Division the Chairperson declared the Motion CARRIED.
Then in November 2009 it again crept in under discussion of the local law. Of course, the public document available on the website does not include this important policy! However if you go to the minutes of November 24th 2009, you will find it in all its glory!
What is most revealing about the ‘policy’ is that under ‘Objective’ where one would expect such lovely sentiments as ‘to govern in the municipality in an open, transparent, accountable’ fashion, we instead have: “To ensure that Councillor Questions are constructive and comply with
the principle that a Councillor should not be surprised by a question to which the Councillor is expected to provide an immediate response in
a public forum.” Now of course it’s become even more suffocating, with motions/amendments having to be presented beforehand – but only for the non-annointed is our guess judging on the Jack-in-the box Tang and his continual amendments!
February 10, 2012 at 7:16 AM
I’ve only a few points to make since many others have already noted their disgust at the failure of governance in Glen Eira.
(1) Lipshutz’s claim that his son was “unaware” of the positions attributed to him on the Facebook page certainly ring hollow – especially when this very son contributed to the comments on Facebook with his name as “officer” and “admin” in full view. I would also disrespectfully suggest that even forwarding such an argument is beneath the dignity of most people – certainly their intelligence, but not it appears Cr Lipshutz!
(2) Hyams logic is equally suspect. If we are to believe what he as stated then the reasoning goes as follows – since the blog “promoted” the petition they are the culprits behind it; since they are “negative” they have to be using suspect tactics to “procure” signatures. This municipality must then have an inordinate number of very, very gullible people since the organisers claimed that over 500 residents signed this petition. Even if these wild assumptions contain a single grain of truth, it still does not excuse Hyams’ and the others’ voting patterns. They are there to make decisions on the basis of facts and sound arguments and to uphold fundamental democratic traditions as Penhalluriack pointed out. Not accepting a petition has nothing to do with councillors’ discretionary powers, but everything to do with bias, self interest and a culture that sees no contradictions between its words and actions. Most people would call this hypocrisy – if they are kind. If unkind then a more accurate label would be deceit.
The biggest charge that should be laid against them is the rap over the knuckles that they received from the last Municipal Inspector’s report – namely to uphold section 3C of the Local Government Act. This episode is not in keeping with the act, the inspector’s findings. It does nothing but further mire the already tattered reputation of this council as a whole, and exposes the petty and small mindedness of individuals who should never again be allowed to pretend that they represent the interests of any community.
February 10, 2012 at 9:59 AM
Lipshutz and Hyams talking about honesty and integrity? That’s one for the ages.
February 10, 2012 at 2:03 PM
State Gov. Media Release –
Direct democracy delivered for Greater Geelong
Thursday, 09 February 2012
From the Minister for Local Government, Implemented policies
The Victorian Coalition Government has delivered on its election pledge to enable the people of Greater Geelong to directly elect their mayor at the 2012 local government elections.
The City of Greater Geelong Amendment Bill 2011 which passed the Upper House of the Victorian Parliament this afternoon provides for the direct election of the mayor by the residents and ratepayers and for the deputy mayor to be elected by the councillors of Greater Geelong.
“Giving the people of Greater Geelong the opportunity to directly elect their mayor is an important step in the evolution of Victoria’s second most populous city,” says Minister for Local Government Jeanette Powell.
“The people of Greater Geelong campaigned for the right to directly elect their mayor and I’m delighted to be delivering yet another Victorian Coalition election promise.
“The final model that was adopted for the City of Greater Geelong Amendment Bill 2011 was based on extensive consultation with the people of Greater Geelong.
“Our comprehensive consultation process found there was overwhelming support for the direct election of the mayor whereas people were more ambiguous about the direct election of the deputy mayor.
As a consequence it was decided to retain the current system whereby the deputy mayor is elected by their fellow councillors on a rotating basis,” Mrs Powell said.
The 12 individual wards for Greater Geelong will also be retained for this year’s local government elections on October 27, which will see the number of councillors, including the mayor, increase to 13. After 2012 the Electoral Commission will conduct an electoral representation review to recommend arrangements to return the number of elected members to 12 – i.e. 11ordinary councillors and the mayor.
The Mayor of Greater Geelong will have additional powers – he or she will be able to appoint councillors to chair special committees of the Council as well as being able to appoint councillors to represent the Council on other bodies. A candidate for mayor is precluded from also running for a position of ward councilor.
“The people of Geelong will have their say on who should be their mayor on October 27th this year and I wish them well,” Mrs Powell said