The last part of tonight’s council meeting plummeted to new depths that we thought impossible even for this council. But it seems that where good governance and fair play is concerned there is no limit to how low one can go! We are referring in particular to the Councillor Question items and the Requests for Reports.
Cr. Forge’s question (printed in the agenda) basically asked for the costs related to the Penhalluriack Councillor Code of Conduct, the O’Neill Report charges and a few other ‘incidentals’.
HYAMS; ‘approximately $65,000….to date….(can’t give full estimate because that’s dependent) ‘on Cr Penhalluriack’s conduct….(stated that it was) ‘relevant that all expenditure … due to Cr. Penhalluriack’s behaviour (and all councillors including Forge) ‘resolved to refer Cr Penhalluriack to the Councillor Conduct Panel…..behaviour towards officers which was found to be inappropriate’ (by O’Neill)…included behaviour….(which) breached …conflict of interest provisions of Local Government Act….(Penhalluriack’s choice to refer this to VCAT also) ‘signifianctly increased the costs’.
Went on to state in answer to the second part of Forge’s question that he ‘was not responsible’ for giving advice to Council’s solicitors. …’it is up to …officers to give effect to …resolutions….(officers may consult with councillors but )’that is up to them’. Hyams concluded that he doesn’t ‘propose’ any mechanism to ensure that councillors are kept apprised of what’s going on.
No councillor commented on this response!
Penhalluriack then asked a question of his own relating to the Audit Committee Annual Report and where it was tabled at a council meeting. He went on to ask: how long Lipshutz, Gibbs and McLean had been on the Audit Committee and why the appointments for the latter were held in camera.
HYAMS: Responded that the audit committee’s report was included in Council’s 2010/11 Annual Report. He then read out the entire entry from the Annual Report. Went on to state that this had been ‘circulated to all councillors in August 2011′ (and adopted at Special Council Meeting in October 2011)…’all 9 councillors were present; the resolution was unanimous….(then stated that the audit committee itself had approved a report in 2011 and that Magee, Lipshutz, Esakoff, Forge and Penhalluriack were present)….’all 5 councillors received the report before the meeting’….’it will be included in the agenda for next ordinary Council Meeting in the same form that you have had for 4 months…..’
Went on to explain the composition of the Audit Committee and that these people are all appointed by council resolution. Lipshutz has been on the committee since 2006. Gibbs since 1998 and reappointed in February 2009; Mclean a member since 1999 and reappointed in February 2011.’ You voted in favour on all four occasions’….’Section 89 of the Local Government Act provides’ for matters regarding personnel to be ‘in camera’….the process …tonight is identical (to that done on) all previous occasions’.
ADVISORY COMMITTEES
Lipshutz was reappointed to the Audit Committee together with Lobo. Again no councillor uttered a word on this continued reappointment.
We will provide further details on what occurred in the coming days.
Glen Eira Debates 
March 20, 2012 at 11:35 PM
If not one councillor apart from Penhalluriack sees anything wrong with the continual appointments of Gibbs and McLean then none of them deserve to be re-elected. If they also think that it serves the public interest that such decisions are made in camera in the obvious attempt to divert attention from this issue, then this is another reason why they should be turfed out. I find it incomprehensible that no-one, and that includes Penhalluriack has the brains to openly challenge the Lipshutz and Newton power games and that all councillors sit meekly by and allow the constant perversion of the law.
The Audit Committee Charter and best practice clearly states that Annual Reports are to be submitted to Council. This means an ordinary council meeting – not buried in the Annual Report which as Lipshutz admitted on the selection of the Mayor, only Hyams bothers to read.
It shouldn’t take bad publicity and councillor questions for the right thing to be done. Now the public will get to see the report 4 months later.
Hyams’ response to the Forge question is unacceptable legally and morally. Hyams is prejudging what the VCAT decision will be. I thought that in our country everyone was to be considered innocent until proven guilty and everyone has the right to avail themselves of a defence. To blame Penhalluriack for the costs is devious and dishonest. Perhaps he should have focused on Newton’s claims of bullying and concluded that it is Newton who has cost ratepayers a huge amount of money.
March 21, 2012 at 12:10 AM
At last there is the admission that it is Newton and his lackeys that run council and that councillors are mere appendages to ratify everything that Newton wants. The statement that it’s up to officers to consult with councillors, or even keep them informed of what’s going on is extraordinary and illegal. This is not the intent of the legislation and nor is it the way any set of councillors should allow themselves to be used. As Mayor it is Hyams job to seek consensus among councillors and then via resolution they direct officers to do their bidding. In washing his hands of this responsibility Hyams has failed to fulfill what he is legally charged to do.
March 21, 2012 at 12:24 AM
Was at the meeting. Believe it or not Debates, your having an effect. Hyams got it right this time when his mate Lipshutz wanted urgent business in camera Hyams actually asked for a vote. Slow learner. But he couldn’t help himself either with his snide little comment to Magee to make sure that he doesn’t look at his mobile phone before he requests a report. What a small minded, (MODERATORS: words deleted) weasel he is!
March 21, 2012 at 8:50 AM
From the Local Government Act:
“It is necessary to ensure…that the Council is responsible and accountable to the local community.”
“It is essential that there is a legislative framework that provides for Councils to be accountable to their local communities in the performance of functions and the exercise of powers and the use of resources.”
“The role of a Council includes…maintaining the viability of the Council by ensuring that resources are managed in a responsible and accountable manner”
Well its sure proving hard to get Council to be accountable for anything. As Cr Hyams revealed, there is an unlimited, unmanaged, and unbudgeted amount of money available to pursue Cr Penhallurick, with no oversight and few clear goals. Of the $63000 spent, how much did Council choose to spend vs Cr Penhalluriack? Why for example were there 7 people representing Council at a VCAT hearing concerning an FOI application? People don’t automatically have a right to legal representation at VCAT, but Council does. And if Council *does* have representation *then* the other parties have an equal right to representation. Council’s decision comes first. The cost of exercising a right to refer a matter to VCAT is negligible in comparison.
I was shocked when I saw what Council resolved to publish in its Minutes about Cr Penhalluriack. It stated as bald fact that “some of Councillor Penhalluriack’s conduct towards Council officers and staff was inappropriate”, not that it was merely a finding of report paid for by Council. The Minutes does later change its tone to soften things to be “alleged breaches”. As emerged at VCAT, Council hadn’t prepared a satisfactory case (although they may yet do so at their second attempt), which in itself raises questions about the quality of information councillors base their decisions on. Pointing out councillors’ past voting record merely highlights how they can be manipulated through choosing carefully the information made available to them.
A recurring theme is that councillors are not being well-informed on the matters they have to make decisions about–the Audit Committee reappointments for example. There is no advice or discussion about the Guidelines. When asked why certain appointments are being made in secret, Cr Hyams responds that its because they can get away with it under LGA and because that’s the way business has always been done at Glen Eira. Not very satisfactory. Just because Council *can* do something isn’t a reason *why* they should do it, and unaccountable practice in the past isn’t justification that it should continue.
If Crs Forge and Penhalluriack ask questions on behalf of the community in support of improved accountability, they should be treated with respect, the responses should not sound like hectoring lectures, and somewhere amongst them there should actually be answers.
March 21, 2012 at 10:32 AM
Hey Mr Green. Where’s your hero Pilling? After all the bullshit about stopping secrecy and to much goes on in secret he doesn’t say boo! Same goes for the rest of them. Gibbs will get an old age pension from Newton. Next he’ll get a pay rise of 2500 per sitting. What a racket and what a bloody disgrace Hyams is.
March 21, 2012 at 12:59 PM
Mr Green here,
Work the numbers out, Cr Pilling is but one person, out of nine
It would be nutty for Cr Pilling to commit suicide over issues he cannot possible hope to ameliorate.
He is living up to the ideals of trying to make Glen Eira more sustainable, and having successes.
One person like Cr Pilling can make a difference and he has done so, but the working of miracles maybe expecting to much at this stage of Glen Eira tragic dilemma
Finding the middle-ground would be a good solution from Glen Eira’s Councillors and for the residents, sadly this doesn’t happen enough, although I suspect this would please the CEO one little bit
March 21, 2012 at 3:36 PM
There’s more to being a councillor than worrying about sustainability especially when you’ve shot your mouth off about secrecy and transparency.
March 21, 2012 at 5:13 PM
Mr Green,
Councillor Pilling was elected on the platform of ‘openness, transparency, accountability’. Sure he’s one of nine but he should be screaming from the mountain tops how the Council of which he is a member is the opposite of his pre-election stunt. Instead he is quiet and therefore complicit.
The truth is he’s just become a game player like the rest of the bunch. Caucus then put forward the things that advance your interests then move to the position of you support me on mine and I’ll support on yours. Huge disappointment is Pilling. I’d even suggest his time as a Councillor hasn’t done anything to lift him into a winnable seat in either of the parliaments as is his modus operandi.
As for Hyams, no surprises there! He was a member of a discredited and ultimately sacked Council and is a Mayor that 50% of the Council don’t want in that position.
March 21, 2012 at 11:28 AM
Jamie me lad, you really disappoint me. If you’re gunna sell ya soul then at least make it worthwhile. Assassinating Penhalluriack is bargain basement stuff.
March 21, 2012 at 11:50 AM
Since when is inappropriate behaviour worth $65000 and this will double by the time that all the vcat decisions are done with. The only inappropriate behaviour I can see comes from Hyams and before him Esakoff in running council meetings where the laws of the land are treated like a joke.
Penhalluriack has every damn right to question what’s going on and every right to express an opinion and to make sure that Newton isn’t wasting public money. That’s what he was elected for.
March 21, 2012 at 5:23 PM
we’ve neglected to mention in the post that the seconder to Lipshutz’s motion to reappoint himself to the Audit Committee came from non other than Neil Pilling!
March 22, 2012 at 12:48 AM
The so called democratic council meeting the other night… If all on the “Glen Eira’s” ship were honest and above board then this mistreatment of individuals representing us at council would not be necessary. The behaviour metered out by the so called mayor, who one would have thought was a simple leader rather than a person behaving like a henchman is unpardonable. We as ratepayers must put a stop to such behaviour. No wonder everyone is scrared to comment… It is interesfing to note all the re-appointments of auditors or who ever thye are titled against re-appointment rules so as they can give themself a little self set examination of how badly the GESAC and other figures will really be!! I remember seeing former mayor Esakoff reading from her mobile and the mayor himself reading from his little red phone, but of course they are in the club and part of the Glen Eira secret service so it’s all ok. (MODERATORS: 2 sentences deleted)
Those in absolute control have forgotten Voltaire’s words:-
I disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to my very death your righjt to say it.”
There will be a mutiny very soon on this sinking ship of “Glen Eira” if this behaviour is allowed to continue.