REQUESTS FOR REPORTS
Esakoff made two requests. First was about the ‘progress’ of consultation on the Booran Rd. Reservoir including dates for such meetings and that the report be tabled back at an Ordinary Council Meeting. Seconded Lipshutz.
Esakoff spoke about how the community in 2007/8 had made it clear that they wanted to have a say on the future of the site. There had been plenty and regular enquiries about ‘what was happening with this site’…..’a growing frustration’…..’I will not be forming any view until we hear from the community’ (She would then)’form a vision based on those views…..beginning of process of bringing it all to fruition…open space…concerns all of us…..(talked about more dense living and why this makes open space even more important)…..’site is unique, enormous’….
PENHALLURIACK: said he thought it was a ‘wonderful idea’ and supported the request.
MAGEE: asked if council would also be consulting with the State government as part of process as to their ‘plans for funding’. Hyams replied that it would be part of ‘funding process’ rather than ‘consultation process’.
ESAKOFF: said that once community had decided about the site that council would surely apply for grants.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
COMMENT: We find it fascinating that this item rears its ugly head at this particular point in time – an election year! Booran Rd. has been on the ‘agenda’ since at least early 2008. This comment appears on the Glen Eira Environment Group’s website: “Council has said that there will be a second round of public consultation possibly in 2010 to gauge the public needs relating to the end use of the reserve. FOGHR hope that this second attempt in public consultation will be transparent and fair and not be loaded to achieve a predetermined outcome as the first round of public consultation clearly was.” To the best of our knowledge, no such ‘consultation process’ has ever occurred. Yet, here we have the ‘sudden’ call for ‘consultation’!!!! Just plain amazing what an election year can throw up!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
LIPSHUTZ: asked for a report on ‘options available” for removing the Council Depot from Caulfield Park and the costs involved. FORGE seconded. Lipshutz said that ever since he has become councillor people have been asking him about this issue and that the depot is ‘a blot’ on the park. ‘we’ve looked at that a number of times’….(now that the park has been ‘beautified’ the depot is) ‘in the wrong place and shouldn’t be there’…..’not suggesting that it should be done prior to anything else….’should be brought to the table’…(issue has come up again and again)…‘It’s not an electioneering issue as Cr. Penhalluriack has suggested.… ‘everyone’….’including Friends of Caulfield Park‘….’we may in fact decide that it is too much money’….’Cambden ward does not have too many issues’….’happy little vegemites in Cambden ward’….but certainly that is one issue…..
FORGE: ‘should be ashamed to have this blight in Caulfield Park….(thought that things can) ‘easily be relocated’….(hot house is) ‘derelict and not functional’….waste of space….(cars/trucks so that park has been) ‘inundated with….unnecessary function….(would like extension of aviary and more barbecues)….’I think the whole area could be much better….’beautified and cared for’…..
MAGEE: Asked Lipshutz to include a ‘joint venture’ in the report with neighbouring councils. Gave example of Bayside’s ‘huge depot’ and Glen Eira could share this and thus save costs for both. Both Lipshutz and Forge agreed to this amendment.
PENHALLURIACK: Penhalluriack spoke about an architect friend who had drawn up some plans for what might work at Booran Rd and that the depot could be moved there. Asked Newton to include these as part of presentation. Went on to call the depot ‘a horrible blight’ at Caulfield Park….(spoke about Friends of Caulfield Park’s latest newsletter which showed how cars and other vehicles are using the park even at night) ‘parked all over the place’….(Supported both Lipshutz’s and Magee’s ideas).
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
COMMENT: Again, an old issue suddenly bursts forth. We have previously written on this as part of ‘untabled requests for reports’ by councillors. We reiterate that on 16th November 2007 Lipshutz and Whiteside had this passed in council: “That a report be prepared as to the Council depot in Caulfield Park being removed from Caulfield Park to another location in or out of the City.”. We also note that 4 years later Mr. Jack Campbell asked a public question as to the outcome of this report. The response led to a single line reference in an Annual Report that an ‘investigation had been undertaken’. End of story! Now, 5 years later we get a very similar request! We might well ask what Cr. Lipshutz has done in the interim and why now, this issue should again be brought up. Surely it has nothing to do with the fact that elections are around the corner? We would also like to make the point that it was NOT PENHALLURIACK WHO RAISED THE QUESTION OF AN ELECTION YEAR BUT LIPSHUTZ HIMSELF WHEN HE CLAIMED HE WAS ‘NOT CYNICAL’!!!!
++++++++++++++++++++++++
ESAKOFF: asked for a report on ‘available options for the provision of female facilities’….’at Lord Reserve Pavilion’ and ‘baseball pavilion in E.E. Gunn Reserve’. (Read from phone). Hyams asked for seconder. Lipshutz seconded. After Lipshutz spoke briefly Hyams asked Burke to read out the request. Esakoff then spoke and said ‘I probably should have said change facilities and toilet facilities….'(NOTE: at this point Esakoff had switched off her phone). Tang then said that he thought that ‘Esakoff had changed the motion’ (in the last thing she said) and that this requires the ‘endorsement of the seconder’….(Lipshutz accepted the changes). Esakoff then spoke about ‘clarifying…by adding on a word’ ….’intention was’ (change and toilet facilities are) ‘two separate things’. Penhalluriack asked Burke to read the motion.
ESAKOFF: summed up by ‘reiterating the need throughout the community’ (about pavilions)….’not modern facilities’…’these two….placed above the Victory Park pavilion priorities….because of that deserve to be deliberated on…as much as we need to deliberate on Victory Park.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
COMMENT: We strongly suspect that 2 of these requests for reports (Lipshutz’s one on the park depot and the Esakoff one on pavilions) did not accord to council’s requirement of 24 hour notice in writing. Lipshutz mentioned a ‘foreshadowing’ of his request during an earlier part of the meeting. If notice had been given as required, there would be no need for such a statement.
Hyams claims that Esakoff’s request was ‘legitimate’ since it was part of the debate on the Victory Park item. No it wasn’t. Both of these other parks were part of a spurious argument designed to derail the motion under consideration – ie. Victory Park. Council’s resolution, which Hyams has quoted, reads in part that 24 hour notice must be given – “except where the motion arises during the course of the meeting or in extraordinary circumstances.” We see no ‘extraordinary circumstances’ here and no ‘motion’ was put ‘during the course of the meeting’. The Victory park item had been debated and decided. It was a closed matter. Esakoff’s request was therefore unlawful.
We also maintain that the confusion as to what the actual wording of the request for a report (as noted by Tang) is the result of Esakoff first reading from her phone, switching it off, and then not having the original wording in front of her. Again, this claim is verified by gallery observers. All in all, these episodes do nothing to instill confidence and trust in the workings of this council.
Glen Eira Debates 
March 1, 2012 at 1:37 PM
I think the post has raised a very good question when it asks Lipshutz what he’s done in the past 5 years about the Caulfield Park depot. It’s strange that if you’re the author of a request dating back to 2007 you do nothing for another 5 years until an election is just around the corner. I also think it’s pretty amusing that of all people Lipshutz is suddenly quoting the Friends of Caulfield Park. In the past he’s had a real go at them and all lobby groups as not representing the community – that only he does. If this isn’t plain old hypocrisy and expediency then I don’t know what is. Not the first time that a couple of contradictions show up with this bloke. Doesn’t matter what he said last week. He’d change this to suit his purposes today. A perfect politician but you’ve got to question whether that makes for a good councillor there to serve the residents as he’s supposed to.
March 1, 2012 at 2:21 PM
Its good to see a common sense approach on the reservoir site.
Margaret has spotted the danger and spelt it out very clearly to her absolute credit
She said – “that once community had decided about the site that council would surely apply for grants”
Why, because she knows the trick the CEO will use to rail road through his swindle of this land from public open space to a synthetic soccer field behind a locked gate, with only a few users having the key.
That’s not public open space, it is private open space with ratepayers footing the bill.
He will apply for a grant no matter how small and then justify the expense of the project for a park, against some funding in hand for a sporting ground.
It will be take or leave it swindle, “the bird in the hand”, he is your choice, we will leave the reservoir as is because it too expensive to do anything with out of councils budget, it will look like it does now for years and years and be burden on ratepayers, or have a soccer field now, which of course will cost far more than any park would ever cost, but that last bit on cost wont be spelt-out.
He may even tempt the locals with a handkerchief park incorporated into the carpark area, just to appear fair, which of course will disappear to a carpark extension when the time is right, a Bailey Reserve type swindle.
Lets not forget what happened last time
Here are the options council gave residents in the first consultation process, in what they still call a fair process of calling residents to a meeting and asking them what they wanted for the reservoir site
“Broadly speaking, there appears to be two options for the future of this site
Development as a sports ground and open space or
Residential development”
The Residential Development option was never ever on the cards, it was a complete fabrication by Glen Eira, a lie to stampede residents into their predetermined option a synthetic soccer field.
So let us see, the community consultation plan is fresh off the press, can council run a honest consultation process free from manipulation, or is it the usual game of treating the residents as second class citizens.
March 1, 2012 at 2:30 PM
This is the mother-of-all gonna councils. We’re gonna do this and we’re gonna do that and nothing gets done. We get a bullshit skewed report back from Newton saying why council just gotta wait for others to do something and the state government to do something and it ain’t good to go it alone. Before you know it 5 years have gone and we’re still back in the dark ages. Plenty of examples – tree register, emergency plan, community gardens, open space blah blah blah. Gonna, gonna gonna vote you lot out.
March 1, 2012 at 2:47 PM
WE’EVE BEEN TALKING OF PLANTING TREES FOE FIVE LONG YEARS AND IT WAS STILL A PERENIAL TOPIC AT THE COMMUNITY CONSULTATION MEETS.
March 1, 2012 at 2:58 PM
I see that you have chosen to repeat your misinformation and defamation.
During item 9.7, the Victory Park Pavilion, Margaret foreshadowed her intention to raise the Lord Reserve Hex and E.E. Gunn Basebell pavilions in a request for a report, as she felt those two pavilions should not be overlooked for Victory Park, which is further down the priority list. This plainly demonstrates two things. The first is that it arose during the course of the meeting. The second is that she had decided to request the report before she supposedly got it from her mobile phone, disproving that ridiculous allegation
I also note that even you say the second time she read out the request, which was after some debate, she had turned her phone off. The second time she read it was word for word exactly the same as the first, except that she realised she had left out the word “change”, so she added it in to alter “female facilities” to “female change facilities”. That means she either has an extraordinary memory, or she was reading it from her notes, not her phone.
I understand that dishonest cowards with a vendetta who prefer to cast false slurs and lie with impunity while hiding behind anonymity will ignore and disparage this evidence, but no-one with a fair mind would deny you are wrong, and that you owe Margaret, Paul and me an apology.
(By the way, can you show me where in the resolution it mentions 24 hours notice?)
March 1, 2012 at 4:31 PM
Here’s a pretty simple question for you Cr Hyams. Did Esakoff and Lipshutz provide other councillors with written notice prior to the council meeting about the depot and about the other pavilions ie E.E. Gunn. A simple yes or no is sufficient.
March 1, 2012 at 7:47 PM
Sound of crickets chirping
March 1, 2012 at 6:01 PM
Jamie Hyams with the (MODERATORS: word deleted) coward remark for others, the kettle calling the pot black.
Jamie the independent never revealing to his electorate who is really is and what he supports and why. Hiding behind his independent cloak day and night, never telling the truth of what motivates his little political career.
Come on Jamie, remove the cloak, blog your heart out, as to your motivations alliances, loves, hates. We are being honest here are we not, we’re all grown ups, we can take the truth.
March 1, 2012 at 7:01 PM
I was present at this meeting and my recollections of what was said do not gel with Cr. Hyams’ points. I certainly do not remember Margaret Esakoff foreshadowing anything. She spoke about liking to have some report but certainly did not give the indication that half an hour later she was going to make a formal request for one.
Again my view of what happened later is that Cr Esakoff did seem quite flustered about the wording of her request. If she had this written on one sheet of paper and had read that out, then there wouldn’t have been any problem. Since there was, I’d say this was a result of using two separate sources.
The way to resolve this issue is for council to make the audio or video tape of the meeting available to the general public. I also think that accusing people of lying as Hyams has does is really a low act. He should also remember that allegations of defamation work both ways as the recent Cr Mayne experience shows.
March 1, 2012 at 3:01 PM
What a dumb idea of Penhalluriack to relocate the council depot to the old reservoir site. Hasn’t he yet got the message parkland is the preferred option. Sheesh!
Interesting that the discussion revolved around a ‘Greens’ issue but apparently no appearance from the Greens councillor during the discussion. Hmm!
March 1, 2012 at 3:53 PM
That would be funny if the council depot moved back to Glenhuntly Road. Isnt that where it was originally? They could then sell it again
March 1, 2012 at 7:06 PM
Use Glenhuntly park. The mulch shed is still there, and staff can use the BBQ for their toolbox meetings. Might have to bulldoze the kids playground though.
March 1, 2012 at 4:29 PM
Calling for a report is the perogative of any councillor at any time. In fact I recall the argument used by some people that a “notice of motion” was not needed in the Local Laws as councillors could call for a report amongst other things and this was as good as a NOM . I think you may be wrong about giving 24 hours notice on calling for a report. In fact the need for a report may arise from debate in council. It would be a very limiting rule to delay councillors gaining reports because it may surprise some people.
Running a blog carries responsibility and “Glen Eira” has a pretty good record of accuracy and fairness. I think you are straying from the straight and narrow and inviting some pretty unfounded allegations. It is fair to get stuck into Councillors for things they do but to stick the boot in for things some people thought they did is dangerous and stupid.
March 1, 2012 at 7:23 PM
You make some interesting observations Anonymous but I think you’ll find that the councillor code of conduct in particular contains the phrase “no surprises” and that this presumeably covers everything from questions, to motions, to requests for reports. This is something that Lipshutz and Hyams fought very hard to get into the various policies and in the end they succeeded.
You also write about “a very limiting rule”. That’s the point of the “no surprises”. It is intended to be limiting and the Whelan report provided the ideal excuse to introduce something as “limiting” as all policies are in Glen Eira. Cr. Pilling spoke about the need for a Notice of Motion and the request for a report does not compensate for its absence.
March 1, 2012 at 9:26 PM
Calling for a report can hardly be considered a surprise. It is unlikely that councillors will deny a fellow councillor a request for a report. So I do not think the “no surprises” clause in the code of conduct would or should apply. If some people deem that it applies then it is in the grey area.
It is not like someone called for a report for the feasability of building a new town hall. In fact I beleive that the number of rules binding councillors is suffocating them, especially the conflict of interest where the lines are drawn on common interest is indeterminable. I still maintain that many people blogging are writing about something that they think happened. As I said it is fair enough to have a go at councillors when they have done something and it is known without doubt. It is not fair to have a go when you only think they did something. This is what is happening.
March 1, 2012 at 9:50 PM
Sadly, there is a long history in this Council where Requests for Reports have been denied by fellow councillors. One example from this current regime is from the minutes of 21 September, 2010 –
“Crs Lobo/Magee
That a report be prepared on how Infringement Notices are issued to
unauthorised sporting groups.
The MOTION was put and LOST.”
March 2, 2012 at 8:25 AM
This was probably rejected for 2 reasons. Firstly it was put up for purely political reasons and secondly, not too many councillors would take Cr. Lobo seriously.
March 1, 2012 at 8:52 PM
Hyams should be seen for what he is, he is a professional propagandist that’s his day job, that what he chooses to be. No wonder we get such rubbish from him, he cannot help him self.
March 1, 2012 at 10:14 PM
Glen Eira – Good memory and you are right! We recall clearly that Cr Lobo requested a report on how infringement notices are issued to unauthorised sporting groups. Even though Cr. Magee seconded the request he later changed his mind when it was put to vote. If the report was issued then the Frisbee group would have been scrutinised and exposed. There was indeed a denial of natural justice particularly when so many questions were asked by the residents on why Frisbee group was getting special treatment.
March 1, 2012 at 10:40 PM
Lobo is not the only councillor who has requested a report and the motion has subsequently not been passed. Glen Eira’s history is littered with such refusals by the prevailing power clique of councillors – many of whom are still sitting in chambers. Thus the argument that a request for a report is a replacement for a Notice of Motion is sheer humbug. A Notice of Motion when there is a seconder is the ONLY means to ensure that an issue is debated on the chamber floor, out in the open. In denying a councillor’s request for a report, the issue never gets off the ground and is effectively gagged. Here are some more examples and we could go back even further to establish a clear pattern:
12 October 2010 –
Cr Lobo/
‘I would like to request a review of the report on unauthorised
sporting groups’.
The MOTION lapsed for want of a Seconder.
8th April, 2008 – Crs Robilliard/ Staikos
That a report be prepared into the circumstances that led to the relocation of the fireworks from oval two to oval four as part of Chanukah in the Park celebrations held in Caulfield Park on December 9 2007.
DIVISION
Cr Lipshutz called for a Division on the voting of the Motion.
FOR
Cr Robilliard
Cr Staikos
AGAINST – Lipshutz, Esakoff, Ashmor, Whiteside, Tang, Whiteside
On the basis of the Motion the Chairperson declared the Motion LOST.
5th February 2008
Crs Robilliard/Staikos
That a report be prepared, including recommendations, into the circumstances that led to the decision to relocate fireworks from oval 4 to oval 2 as part of the Chanukah celebrations in Caulfield Park on December 9 2007.
The MOTION was put and LOST.
18th March, 2008
Crs Robilliard/Staikos
That Council conduct an investigation into the circumstances that led to the relocation of the fireworks from the site nominated by Council to a site closer to Parks depot as part of the Chanukah in the Park celebrations conducted in Caulfield Park on December 9 2007.
DIVISION
Cr Staikos called for a Division on the voting of the Motion.
FOR
Cr Staikos
Cr Spaulding
Cr Rbbilliard
AGAINST – Whiteside, Esakoff, Ashmor, Tang
On the basis of the vote the Chairperson declared the Motion LOST.
7th November 2007
Crs Staikos/Tang
That a report be prepared on the operation of village committees in the City of Kingston and similar committees in other Councils and the feasibility of such committees in Glen Eira.
The MOTION was put and LOST on the casting vote of the Chairperson.
March 2, 2012 at 9:44 AM
My goodness. I can’t believe that a simple moral issue at Victory Park has really shown what some of these councilors are all about.
We have Cr Hyams denying anything untoward went on with Cr Esakoff who was obviously flustered and all over the shop reading from mobile phones and shuffling paper to try and remember what she was arguing about. Not nice when you’re on the receiving end is it Cr Esakoff.
Then you had Paul Burke being fairly active whispering to Cr Hymas and having to read over and over what was or wasn’t said. Glasses coming off his nose to his forehead and back to his nose again.
You had Tang and Lipshutz trying to derail as opposed to going with what is morally right by trying to amend the motion.
It was an absolute circus and amazing to watch how something so moral can make peoples true colors come out.
I can’t wait for the October elections but in the mean time I think Victory Park should be spoken about at every council meeting. Maybe this way by October there will be 4 to 5 less people in chambers.