Featured below is only one comment attributed to Hyams following the release of the Ombudsman’s report. There were of course many comments which taken together reveal once more the thinking that is undoubtedly behind much of what has happened. It’s an election year first and foremost and the pressure is definitely on. We restrict ourselves however to only one of Hyams’ alleged statements published in the Melbourne Bayside Weekly because of the sublime irony it contains –
Glen Eira mayor Jamie Hyams said voters should take the report’s findings into account at the next election. “The decision to run is up to Frank,” he said.
Leaving aside the sheer political expediency (nastiness?) of such a comment, we simply ask: Is this the reason Hyams didn’t run in 2005 after he had been sacked by the Minister? The fear that voters would ‘take the report’s findings into account’? Three years later, when he stood for election, we presume there was always the hope that the notoriety would have slipped voters’ minds! Ah, how soon some of us do forget and would like others to forget!
Glen Eira Debates 
April 1, 2012 at 8:30 AM
What residents should take into account at the next election is that Hyams voted for C60; voted against notice of motion; voted for 8 storeys knowing it would get 10; voted for his buddy Esakoff on the heritage property; voted to extend car parks instead of keeping parks; like lipshutz has attacked residents; like esakoff doesn’t uphold the rule of law as chair of council meetings. His voting record should be highlighted again and again. He is anti community full stop and achieved nothing for residents in his lengthy time on council.
April 1, 2012 at 9:26 AM
Agree with you on Hyams performance. Re the heritage issue Hyams is quoted as saying, in the media (local and the Age), that Council does not believe the property was worthy of protection.
This comment was made after the Council was soundly criticised by the independent planning panel for
. admitting that Council was unable to find a heritage advisor that agreed their view (six heritage advisor reports were obtained – all supported heritage protection)
. failing to recognise the importance of heritage when reviewing planning proposals, particularly in housing diversity (i.e. high density) areas.
That this man is President of the Glen Eira historical society is a complete travesty.
April 1, 2012 at 9:32 AM
Hyams, and the whole Council, should be on their knees thanking whoever that this heritage issue has not been investigated. Why it hasn’t been investigated is beyond me – it was blatant favouring of one of their own.
April 1, 2012 at 10:47 AM
He has also expressed a preference for and voted in support of 5-storey buildings rather than 3-storey buildings regardless of the close proximity of single-storey dwellings; argued for the removal of Development Contribution Plan Overlays (meaning developers don’t have to pay for their infrastructure); supported 100% site coverage and 0% permeability leading to loss of amenity such as through massive bulk with no landscaping opportunities; and in the space of the last 48 hours he has breached the Councillor Code of Conduct.
One could write a book about the weakness of the Local Government Act, the Councillor Code of Conduct, our Local Law, and the abuses of them commited by everybody mentioned in the Ombudsman’s Report.
Regardless of the merits of the case against Cr Penhalluriack, which will be explored with greater professionalism at VCAT, there is still a need for Councillors to review their own behaviour and those of council officers. They should reread, or read for the first time if necessary, their Code of Conduct and Local Law. How many breaches of their Code and LL can councillors find in and about the Special Meeting called by Mayor Hyams?
April 1, 2012 at 12:04 PM
The Local Law is rendered meaningless and ineffectual by our councillors and the CEO. The same is true of the Code of Conduct. Both are only called upon when it is needed to silence opposition. It is never employed to ensure transparency or even fair play. The chief proponents of its misuse are Newton, Esakoff, Hyams, Lipshutz and Tang. Until the State Government comes to its senses and radically amends the legislation to guarantee the the powers of unelected bureaucrats are curtailed then Glen Eira is doomed to repeat its dismal history.
April 1, 2012 at 9:15 AM
You could argue that as Mayor Hyams is representing council and that the comments are okay. I don’t subscribe to this view. They go further than they need to and are even gloating. It’s irrelevant whether he’s happy with the recommendations or not and to make comments about someone’s character as he did on TV is pretty loathsome. All this tells me is what a petty character he is and how much he’s in the pocket of Newton and Lipshutz.
April 1, 2012 at 10:54 AM
I for one think Penhaulrick is in the wrong. However Hyams on TV and Newton are acting like children in their gloating. Your only young once but anyone can be immature!
April 1, 2012 at 9:50 AM
Jamie can’t help himself – he is so happy at finally getting a crack at being Mayor (forget the coin toss) that he can’t believe that everyone else isn’t as delighted as he is
April 1, 2012 at 1:47 PM
Glen Eira you are joking. We all know what a (MODERATORS: WORD DELETED) person Hyams is , but the facts are that you will do everything but discuss the (MODERATORS: WORD DELETED) behavior of your mate Frank.
April 1, 2012 at 4:35 PM
Gosh, we’re so damn lucky to have councillors of the calibre of Lipshutz and Hyams. They’re so talented and can multi-task at the same time as representing us. That means that maybe we can get rid of 50 staff cos these geniuses are capable of doubling up as lawyers and heritage experts and psychologists/psychiatrists all at once. Lipshutz showed his expertise on the Esakoff heritage debacle and now Hyams is showing his expertise in analysing the motives and character of Penhalluriack. We sure are lucky to have such ginormous egos on council.
April 1, 2012 at 4:45 PM
I’m not a big fan of Penhalluriack. He’s been weight in the municipalities saddlebag before.
However, it must be dreadfully frustrating to be continually stonewalled as is the practice with our administration. Those of us who have engaged the administration have experienced it. It must be doubly frustrating when you’re an elected representative.
It’s a poor reflection on our administration that it is unable to work its way through this without resorting to the law.
As for Hyams. I’ve said it before, just how ratepayers voted Hyams and
Esakoff back after they were part of a discredited Council astonishes me. It shows how little care or attention most ratepayers pay to our municipal affairs.
Oh! And remember Hyams is a ‘toss of the coin’ Mayor that half the Council don’t want as Mayor.
April 1, 2012 at 8:49 PM
The coin toss would not have been needed if Cr. Lobo had attended the meeting. The story goes that he was unable to decide to vote for Hyams or Magee so he stayed away. great community rep. to have and is collecting $20,000 for his efforts. Hyams at least turns up.
April 1, 2012 at 7:07 PM
Cr Lobo was absent, although the Minutes don’t reveal why. Maybe recovering from yet another “spray” at an Assembly of Councillors. Most telling though is that the Special Meeting was to elect a Mayor, and as the Minutes records, “No Councillor disclosed any interest in any of the agenda items”. Yup. You heard it.
April 1, 2012 at 10:00 PM
I hadn’t noticed before but the email included in the agenda items where Newton declares a conflict of interest about the laneway says much more than I’m sure he intended to let out to the general public. My reading of this is quite simple. Not all councillors are provided with the same information. The email is addressed to Whiteside which is legitimate since she would have been mayor at the time. But both Lipshutz and Tang are copied into the email. I do not see any reason for such “privileged treatment”. Either all councillors are informed of what is happening or only the mayor is. The email I suggest is another example of Newton playing definite favourites and in flagrant disregard of what the Whelan Report stated – all councillors should get identical information! Then there’s the very good question as to why it is Lipshutz and Tang and not others who received this email. Newton’s pawns and can be assured to deliver the desired results. .
April 1, 2012 at 11:49 PM
Annonymous 6 a, Reprobate 7 & D. Evans – You three need to get a life if you do not have much to contribute to your family and community. Morons have no place in this world. Grow up and find out the fact before assuming things.
April 2, 2012 at 1:09 PM
Facts are good. Which facts are you disputing?
April 2, 2012 at 8:05 PM
Cr. Lobo is behaves like (MODERATORS: words deleted). He drives around in a car with Cr Lobo number plates. He missed many important meetings including the mayoral vote. His days on Council are numbered. I am wondering what he will do with the number plates. i agree with you Clover that (MODERATORS: word deleted) have no place in this world. That would include Councils. We have a few there.
April 4, 2012 at 1:35 AM
What are you going on about with moderators censoring your comments? If you are a genuine person, why don’t you come out with your full name or better still call Cr. Lobo and ask him why he had to miss the meetings.Give your name or send him an e-mail.