A few preliminary comments on tonight’s Special Council Meeting –
- Doors were again locked
- Residents attending the meeting in order to find out what was going on would have left none the wiser and certainly confused as to (a) why the urgency, and (b) what the outcomes were
- History revisionists were out in full force
We report on Item 4.1 – noting and ‘adopting’ the Ombudsman’s report.
HYAMS: Asked if anyone had a conflict of interest to declare. No one did. Hyams moved the motion including that the Secretary of the Department implement recommendation 2 and 3 of the ombudsman’s report. Pilling seconded. Began by explaining why there wasn’t 7 days notice because needed a ruling from VCAT before the compulsory conference which is set down for next week. so there’s a ‘very tight time frame’…’I find the report to be a very accurate recounting of the facts…..behaviour of Cr Penhalluriack and the effects of the behaviour’. (Spoke about how on the night of the Mayoral election many councillors referred to the ‘difficult’ year that Esakoff had had as Mayor)….’now…the community understands why….significant report (because Ombudsman lists all of his previous reports and only 8 of them concern councils and only 2 are about individual councillors) ‘so clearly when the Ombudsman releases a report about a single councillor’ (not to be ignored).
Read out Paragraph 12 which talked about Penhalluriack ‘contesting the rules governing his behaviour in a forceful and aggressive way’…’that’s why we come to this situation….(referred to his tv interview and that they didn’t include the entire comment) ‘Cr Penhalluriack is a very successful businessman used to running his own show….having his own way….has trouble with the contraints imposed on councillors via the Local Government Act…(Mentioned that the report is) ‘largely uncritical of council and its efforts….critical on council being too lenient on Cr Penhalluriack….(3 aspects to the report – mulch facility). Municipal Inspector ‘has released a letter to us that said there is insufficient evidence to satisfy the evidentiary burden of proof required for criminal cases…..(therefore no action but Ombudsman looked at misconduct which)’would have a lesser evidentiary burden’…..so because something isn’t prosecutable as a crime doesn’t mean it isn’t misconduct’…..’so the Municipal Inspector and Ombudsman aren’t necessarily incompatible….(stated that he didn’t think that Penhalluriacks ‘motivations’ re the mulch were to profit his business)….’but motivation and even action you take doesn’t matter’…..what matters is that the interest exists….(Said that he had argued before that there wasn’t a conflict of interest and that he had moved the amendment to withdraw the mulch from the allegations to go to the councillor conduct panel)…’but having seen the Ombudsman’s report (he accepts that there could be a conflict of interest)….
‘Laneway matter seems to be pretty straight forward….(he wasn’t present at the meetings)…but that’s the ombudsman’s findings and we’re obliged (to accept them)….(as to the bullying)’I have to agree…..’given the repeated nature of these infringements….(then findings of misconduct and serious misconduct) ‘may not suffice’…..’under Section 81k of the Local Government Act (VCAT can find misconduct and serious misconduct but )‘the ongoing behaviour…justifies us asking the other parties to endorse the ombudsman’s recommendations as well’….’I would hope that the Secretary would send the right message about the importance’ (of the report). (As to recommendation 3 then the processes are ‘cumbersome’ and expensive for councils and when there is a councillor who is) ‘potentially far more disruptive than Cr. Penhalluriack could practically shut down the council ….make all discussions impossible’….
ASKED FOR TIME EXTENSION. Motion was carried. Penhalluriack asked for a division. ‘You really want a division on whether I should be allowed to talk any longer’. Penhalluriack answered ‘yes’. Tang raised a point of order that you can request a division on a motion
Against: Forge & Penhalluriack
Hyams: Perhaps Cr Forge (might like to see what Cr Penhalluriack) is doing before she puts her hand up next time.
PENHALLURIACK: Asked Hyams to withdraw the comment. Hyams asked ‘On what grounds” and Penhalluriack said that it was ‘rude’ and ‘not necessary’. Hyams responded that that wasn’t grounds for a point of order. But ‘I will withdraw’.
HYAMS: went on to reiterate that when a councillor is disruptive and could close down council that there are far ‘wider matters’ to be considered and that’s why there’s the recommendation to the Secretary.
PILLING: ‘I fully accept this Ombudsman’s report…seriousness of the report…many instances of councillor misconduct….
PENHALLURIACK: Started off by stating that people need to ‘look at background…arisen because Andrew Newton refuses to speak to me…..refuses mediation….(refuses to discuss) ‘the problem he obviously has with me….I feel that problem has existed ever since I was elected….made my life very difficult….bully in this area is not me…I am the victim of bullying….from all of the councillors ….ostracised me….forced me from my place of work…(Said that both the O’Neill report and Ombudsman’s report are based on) ‘opinion….who may be lying through their teeth….when you get in the witness box….you are named…subject to…cross examination….I have no idea who in this room has given evidence…ombudsman is a great institution….digs out corruption….I am not corrupt and I have never bullied anybody in this room. (Admitted to getting frustrated) ‘but I am not a bully’. (Went on to state that the ombudsman investigator (Mcullough) has) ‘quite a file’…..most unhelpful (in getting copy of meeting with him)….in my interview…..all I was asked about was the mulch shed….(not the other matters and he doesn’t know who raised them)….’I am the person who has been victimised in all this’ (didn’t have to go this far because council could have gone to mediation before O’Neill and Esakoff simply handed it over to council)…‘council resolution was to (go to mediation first and this didn’t happen)’.
LIPSHUTZ: didn’t want to comment on the report because ‘it speaks for itself…endorses (the recommendation because it is ‘general’….’where you have any councillor’ (causing problems and not like parliament)‘we’re a band of 9 councillors and we work together’….’when a councillor does not do so….intolerable situation...Local Government Act doesn’t do what should be done…’quick and easy solution’….allows the mess to…drag on….forever and ever…..(Commented on Penhalluriack’s claim that he was ostracised in that every councillor) ‘at one stage….tried to assit Cr Penhalluriack…..unfortunately (Penhalluriack says I’m right all the time and you people are wrong)…‘I reject absolutely that this is Mr Newton’s fault….’not about mediation’…’went as far as getting a report….unfortunate….let the law take its course….(we’ve got a system and have to abide by it right or wrong).
MAGEE: Stated that it’s been ‘going on for quite some time’. The recommendations will perhaps also go to VCAT after the Councillor Conduct Panel ‘that’s where we get the opportunity to question…(Penhalluriack has opportunity to)’present evidence himself’…’the evidence from both sides needs to be put together (and someone independent adjudicate). Stated that when all the evidence has been put forward that he’s looking forward to a decision, ‘a definitive answer’….’somewhere a defining line where we can accept the answers….at the moment I ….endorse the recommendations of the Ombudsman….(but also wanted the end of the process)
FORGE: Said last 17 months have been difficult and that she and Cr. Penhalluriack have ‘worked very closely’, and ‘every blow that he has been feeling I feel as well…(reiterated that at VCAT they can be cross examined and)’get an answer to these questions’….
MAGEE:Brought up point of order that he didn’t say anything about being cross examined but that Penhalluriack could ask questions.
TANG: Said that he thought councillors needed to explain in a council meeting ‘how they react and why…..ongoing process….tying to work with Penhalluriack’ (objected to the term ‘ostracise’ because he claimed that all councillors)’had tried in lengthy…conversations…..early…late….hardware store….tried to work with Cr Penhalluriack to achieve what he wants to do within the prism of the Local Government Act….to try and get the information that….(he wants and whether his motions are)’reasonable within the confines of theLocal Government Act’. Accepts the ombudsman’s findings because councillors have employed ‘abundant caution’…..trying to gather all the evidence before proceeding….(outside and putting all this to Penhalluriack)….’only after that process did council go outside….to resolve these issues…..flush out these issues….Cr Penhalluriack himself decided to go to VCAT….Ombudsman has obviously decided to independently investigate….(council didn’t think that Penhalluriack had a conflict of interest over mulch)…ombudsman is not in the position of a councillor….(time extension)….I accept the finding….notwithstanding that I may have taken a different position in the past….(Said that Penhalluriack’s claim that he wasn’t asked about all the recommendations/allegations that Penhalluriack would have got the ombudsman’s report in draft format to respond, same with internal investigation)…’was provided for….I agree with councillors who have said he has been disruptive….process needs to be resolved….agree with recommendations….it could have been resolved easier….given our obligations as councillors…..taken all reasonable steps we could….(now with the ombudsman’s report) ‘we can do nothing else’.
PENHALLURIACK: Asked that the Municipal Inspector’s report 15th March and 26th August 2010 ‘be incorporated into the minutes’. Pilling seconded. Tang asked why he wanted these documents and which versions since council got one version and Penhalluriack another one. Penhalluriack said that these documents ‘throw a different light….(on the obmudsman’s report reagarding the mulch and misuse of his position to enter the CEO’s office.)
HYAMS: Stated that there no compunction on anyone concerned about workplace safety ‘to undergo mediation’…(said he was aware of mediation in another council where the councillor ended up ramming an officer’s head into a wall)…”I don’t know that mediation is necessary…what is obligatory is for council to provide a safe workplace….(Penhalluriack claims that he’s been ostracised but it’s )unfortunate that (his behaviour has lead us to taking this aciton)…’the only criticism the obmudsman had of us is that we were too lenient on him….(reiterated how councillors had spent much time discussing these issues with Penhalluraick)….’we had an indepeendent expert come in….inappropriate behaviour…ombudsman (also found this)….”I hope that if VCAT comes to the same conclusion that we don’t hear they are also wrong….(voting isn’t about whether Penhalluriack is ‘liked’)….’very personable….’I’ve had a good relationship with him (most of the time)….our duty to look at this objectively….honour our obligations….
MOTION PUT: IN FAVOUR – Lipshutz, Lobo, Magee, Pilling, Tang, Hyams
Against: Forge & Penhalluriack.
Glen Eira Debates 
April 4, 2012 at 7:14 AM
Pilling does have a conflict of interest. (MODERATORS: This section of the comment has been deleted). No surprise that he is going hard.
April 4, 2012 at 8:37 AM
Poor Cheryl. She is really nice. Just unfortunate she is stuck with Frank.
I thought there was going to be a vote on bringing the mulch back to Glen Huntly?
April 4, 2012 at 9:22 AM
The vote to reopen the mulch was defeated. Further discussion will take place in May. We will report on the other motions in the next few days.
April 4, 2012 at 9:57 AM
what was the vote count. Interesting if it has changed from last time
April 4, 2012 at 2:51 PM
Shame that the moderators cut out some of the comments because Pilling does have a case to answer about how he votes and why he allows himself to be bamboozled by the gang. We’re supposed to believe that he’s all for more transparency and open government but if the report is accurate he sure doesn’t have a lot to say for himself when it matters. He rolls over and let’s them do a number on him. Lobo is a lost cause and Magee sits on the fence when it suits. Forge isn’t up to the hurly burly of knuckle dusting politics. Newton’s laughing all the way to the bank with this lot that he can twist around his little finger.
April 4, 2012 at 9:12 AM
There’s much to digest here, but certain points do not require much contemplation. For about the third time Council has not managed to have the doors open so that the public may easily enter the building and attend a council meeting. They have also neglected to publicise this meeting in the Leader, as well as failing to provide agendas at several libraries. The placing of a miniscule advertisement in The Age or on the council website is not sufficient notice, especially for those people who do not have access to a computer or do not read the public notices in The Age. I daresay this is quite deliberate and in keeping with this Council’s sorry record on proper communication with its ratepayers.
I must also comment on the particularly snide and offensive remarks by Hyams. What a nasty piece of work he is. Not enough that he engaged in a personal attack on Cr. Forge but his attempt to excuse his behaviour by resorting to the legal tricks he is so fond of is well and truly beyond the pale. He must have eventually realised that the Act would not save him this time and that he had stepped over the line so withdrew his statement. Had Cr. Penhalluriack not called him to order, then I’m sure this remark would have been met by silence from all other councillors.
It’s a futile exercise to point out that with such a statement Hyams should be found guilty of breaching the Councillor Code of Conduct which states that councillors are to treat each other, officers and members of the public with respect. This then places him in exactly the same boat as alleged against Penhalluriack – but with far less honour.
I also resent his complete misrepresentation of the recommendations and his statements about the legal obligations concerning ‘mediation’. Whether or not mediation is obligatory is irrelevant. So is his personal opinion. If councillors are to do their duty, as is reported here ad nauseum, then he and his fellow councillors were obligated to see to it that mediation was the first step in the process – regardless of what Newton wanted. They are also obligated to ensure that funds are spent wisely. Running off to countless lawyers is irresponsible if you haven’t gone to mediation first.
Hyams’ arguments collapse completely when they’re compared to the actual recommendation which says “That Council record that its internal dispute resolution process does not apply to this situation and that the matters are incapable of being resolved internally”. There’s a vast difference between saying that mediation “does not apply” and that it’s not “obligatory”. No one I gather offered an explanation as to why they don’t apply. No wonder people left confused as reported. Then there’s the point that if mediation hasn’t been attempted then how can it be said to be “incapable of being resolved”? Penhalluriack’s comments probably provide the real answer. Newton point blank refused to “mediate” and this was meekly accepted by the gang and others.
I also find it incredibly offensive and hypocritical of Hyams when he argues that because “something isn’t prosecutable as a crime doesn’t mean it isn’t misconduct’. I’d like to remind him of the recent Municipal Inspector’s report which found that councillors seemed to have forgotten Section 3C of the Local Government Act. There mightn’t have been a technical breach of the Act but their behaviour was certainly suspect. If this had gone to the ombudsman, instead of the Munciipal Inspector, then perhaps the outcomes might have been somewhat different to the light tap on the wrist. Then there’s the conflict of interest on Lipshutz’s part and Hyams words that motivation and action don’t matter – you can still have a conflict of interest – especially where one’s son is involved and emails are written to officers asking that they ‘see into the matter’. I seem to remember that it’s on this issue that Hyams wanted various minutes changed so that they wouldn’t be so incriminating about his fellow lawyer colleague.
If nothing else, these arguments alone show up the double standards that this administration and most of its councillors adhere to and the countless breaches of both the code of conduct and the Local Government Act that has been overlooked and covered up. What a sorry and pathetic council we have.
April 4, 2012 at 10:59 AM
You’re correct Mr Evans. There’s nothing here that explains what really happened. We’re supposed to believe that because Penhalluriack is “disruptive” that that’s a good enough reason. Not one word has been said about bullying.
Hyams blames Penhalluriack for escalating costs by going to vcat. This mob have just blown the budget out of the water by asking the secretary to go to vcat as well. I’m assuming that this means two separate vcat hearings. This isn’t Penhalluriack’s doing – it’s hyams and his supporters. They are so desperate to get their man that they’re willing to spend tens of thousands of dollars more. Residents are stuck with a vindictive admin and councillors who haven’t got the foggiest about working for residents and making sure that money is spent wisely. They are a total disgrace.
April 4, 2012 at 1:57 PM
Mediation should be the first port of call for everyone including Newton. Lawyers, panels and vcat are the last resort. I’d like an explanation of why this wasn’t attempted.
April 4, 2012 at 9:32 AM
http://www.vexnews.com/2012/04/casey-crime-spree-questions-from-public-forms-appear-to-contain-forged-signatures-vexnews-exclusively-reveals/
http://www.vexnews.com/2012/04/in-the-frame-australias-sleaziest-council-boss-dobbed-in-by-his-own-allies-to-ombudsman-over-sex-scandal/
April 4, 2012 at 11:42 AM
This has been on Jon Faine’s show this morning. Minister has got to act and introduce legislation that stops officers and especially ceo’s from thinking and acting like they run councils. They do not and the sooner we get some decent legislation that makes them fully accountable then the sooner the mess that is Glen Eira can be cleaned up.
April 4, 2012 at 5:09 PM
Casey Council’s Media Release –
City of Casey refers matters for investigation: Issued 4 April 2012
SubscribePrint Email
MEDIA RELEASE: 4 April 2012
At its Council Meeting (3 April 2012), the City of Casey resolved to refer 18 alleged matters regarding the conduct of Mayfield Ward Councillor Kevin Bradford, and a previously settled VCAT discrimination matter involving the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Mr Mike Tyler, for investigation.
City of Casey Mayor, Cr Sam Aziz said ‘Council cannot continue to be destabilised by ongoing attacks on its CEO and continued reports of alleged misconduct by Councillor Bradford hanging over its head.
‘The Council meeting sought to bring these matters to a head.
‘The attempts by Cr Bradford to undermine or sack the CEO have been part of a longrunning campaign. The matter came to a head with his unsuccessful attempt to sack the CEO over matters associated with a previous sexual harassment claim against the CEO.
‘These claims were denied by Council and the CEO, settled for commercial reasons only and subject to a follow up independent investigation requested by Council into the conduct of the CEO which determined that the CEO did not breach or contravene any legislation and that he was innocent of the allegations made against him.
‘Although having already had the independent investigation into the matters, Council also resolved to ask the Auditor General and Victorian Ombudsman to investigate the process undertaken by Council’s executive officers and the Council in relation to the action brought against the CEO and the City of Casey.
‘I was very happy to second this motion as the previous investigation had determined there had been no wrong doing, and a further independent investigation by a state agency will be welcome.
‘Council also resolved to refer the 18 various issues of alleged inappropriate conduct by Cr Bradford to a Councillor Conduct Panel.’
During the Council meeting, Victoria Police were called to remove two residents who were disrupting the meeting.
Cr Aziz said, ‘The occurrences of the Council meeting are unfortunate, but happened because of agitators in the public gallery.
‘I can confirm Cr Bob Halsall used a profanity during the debate on a motion to initiate an investigation into a number of issues of alleged inappropriate conduct by Cr Kevin Bradford.
‘One of these allegations concerned the previous use of this word by Cr Bradford. Cr Halsall apologised both before and afterwards to Councillors and the public gallery but felt that the offensiveness of the word which he alleged was spoken by Cr Bradford to his wife, needed to be said so that people understood the offence caused to his wife and himself.
‘I am proud of the City of Casey and what Council has achieved. We now need to get on with the business of serving our community as elected representatives,’ concluded Cr Aziz.
At the meeting, Council resolved to refer the following matters concerning the alleged conduct of Cr Bradford to a Councillor Conduct Panel:
The proven findings regarding misuse of position by Cr Bradford as outlined in the Ombudsman’s report to the Victorian Parliament in 2010 and his breach of confidentiality and leaking of confidential and sensitive Council information;
Proven bullying and misconduct towards former Council Director Ms. Jennie Lee throughout the period of 2005 to 2007, resulting in ending her career and causing her depression, and resulting in hundreds of thousands of dollars of ratepayer funds being expended in compensation;
Witnessed inappropriate conduct for the entire duration of a Council-funded conference in Brisbane on the subject of graffiti management;
Witnessed bullying and misconduct towards former Cr. Lorraine Wreford throughout the period of 2003 to 2008;
Witnessed bullying and verbal abuse of former Councillor Janet Halsall throughout her year as Mayor 2007-2008;
Witnessed bullying and misconduct towards former Cr. Steve Beardon throughout the period of 2005 to 2008;
Alleged harassment and bullying of a Neighbourhood House coordinator during 2007;
Alleged fraudulent acquisition of another councillor’s campaign funds in 2005, as reported on the front page of the Berwick News;
Alleged ongoing harassment and bullying of female members of Casey’s community during 2005 to 2008;
Alleged misuse of the Councillor role and Councillor privileges for political purposes during his previous employment as a staffer for a local Member of Parliament Luke Donnellan in particular during the lead-up to a State election;
Alleged failure to disclose conflicts of interest or a conflict of duty in the context of Stevensons Road closed landfill issues and his employment at that time with a State Government MP;
Alleged deliberate release of erroneous details to the media over an extended period regarding the establishment in Casey of facilities for Melbourne Football Club in order to shore up his opposition to the project in 2008;
Alleged bullying of local journalists over an extended time phase, thus compromising the integrity and impartiality of certain personnel within the local media;
Alleged compromise of an independent report commissioned by the Council regarding Casey’s M&CH service at ratepayers’ expense, thus rendering its findings null and void, followed by leaks to the press of the confidential contents;
Alleged wilful and deliberate misinformation to a Doveton Recreation Reserve Committee of Management regarding its Ward representatives on Council, resulting in distress and distrust within the community, as well as needless antagonism between co-users of the facility in the period between 2005-2008;
Alleged failure to pass on important community feedback to Council officers, thus denying them the opportunity to follow them up or for the community to receive the necessary responses and outcomes in the period between 2003-2012;
Witnessed use of foul and inappropriate language in the Council Chamber over an extended period of time right up to the present date which has been directed at other councillors and which indicates a complete lack of respect for the Council and the Chamber; and
Alleged harassment and bullying of the CEO of the City of Casey from 2006 until the present date resulting in the undermining of the role of the CEO, and the subsequent waste of Council resources in responding to unjustified claims.
Council resolved to write to the Premier of Victoria, and request that:
The alleged misconduct of Cr Bradford and Mr Luke Donellan MP, be referred to the independent broad based anti corruption commission (IBAC), upon its establishment to investigate alleged continuous medalling, and interfering and undermining of the democratically elected council of the City of Casey for party political gain.
The IBAC using its coercive powers conduct a record of interview with Mr Peter Strachan, editor of the Leader Newspaper to obtain the truth of the communication he had with Councillor Bradford, and the misuse of position as outlined in the ombudsman’s report, to the Victorian parliament in 2010, and his breach of confidentiality and leaking of confidential and sensitive council information.
Investigating the circumstances that led to Cr Bradford’s sudden departure from Victoria Police and whether:
a) this type of conduct is befitting of the behaviour of an elected official
b) formal charges should be laid in relation to these circumstances.
April 4, 2012 at 8:19 PM
This bloke makes Frank look like a saint.
April 4, 2012 at 10:35 AM
Tang’s let the cat out of the bag. Penhalluriack’s being screwed cos he asks for information and how to put motions. What a hanging offence. Tang is basically telling us that Newton keeps all the information to himself or his little favourites like Tang and the other councillors have to beg, crawl to get the information that should be theirs by rights. In all the motions that Penhalluriack has put forward nothing is wrong with them. What Tang is saying is that they’ve made Penhalluriack change his motions because the gang wouldn’t let them through when these were all discussed in secret. What Tang’s said here is enough to condemn him, Newton and exonerate Penhalluriack.
April 4, 2012 at 11:20 AM
Stop pussy footing around Frank. Counter charge bullying against the whole damn lot of them. Put em all on the stand and tear thenm to bits.
April 4, 2012 at 2:55 PM
Penhalluriack raised questions of mulch facility health and safety because of
. overspilling of mulch on to the Glen Huntly Park carpark and
. airborne bacteria on Council workers (not issued with protected clothing) and children in the playground or attending school.
To support these claims Penhalluriack presented information on the health risks associated with mulch and photographic evidence of the dust and unsafe working conditions. When this was discussed at Council, Councillors voted 7 to 2 to “err on the side of caution” and close the facility. Tang subsequently asked for a report (yet to be presented) on possible alternate locations for the free mulch facility.
So over a year later – a year which has seen considerable residential angst, much mud slinging and no Council action – we come to last nights meeting.
At last nights meeting
. sections of a report on mulch, commissioned by Council, were read out. Although the report should have been included in the agenda it wasn’t.
. much criticism was levelled at the original evidence presented by Penhalluriack (“got it off the internet”)
The sections of the reported quoted dealt with issuing workers with protective clothing (gloves, protective glasses), installing a sprinkler system to reduce dust and airborne bacteria and preventing mulch spills into the car park.
Council’s decision on mulch was to delay a decision while Council ponders the report and continues to wait for a report on alternate locations.
Seems pretty obvious that Penhalluriack’s mulch concerns have been verified – although this little nicety was overlooked at last nights meeting. It also seems that the current course of action (review the report, look for alternate locations) is an appropriate course of action.
However, this does have me wondering why Council didn’t adopt this course of action when the issue was originally raised. Why, given the actions or inactions of Council since the issue was originally raised, should I put faith in this Council acting responsibly. If they didn’t do it in the first place, why should they do it in second place.
April 4, 2012 at 3:46 PM
so Wondering if they doors were closed is your real name Frank?
April 4, 2012 at 4:07 PM
The doors under the clock tower and which lead into the passageway and stairs to chamber were locked at 6.45pm. Residents had to go all the way round to the library entrance in order to get in. A few people were let in by one person who sat inside and when they saw people approaching pressed the green button on the inside to let them in. We assume that eventually the door was unlocked so that residents could have direct access. This is not the first time that doors have been locked for public meetings. It can happen once but not three times. This is a reflection on organisation as well as how much thought is given to the public.
April 4, 2012 at 5:08 PM
Not sure why MRC mentions doors closed since they are not mentioned in Wondering’s post. (I guess he has his reasons)
Wondering makes some good sense – it is wise to take precautions around mulch.
Can’t work out why Council didn’t get a consultants report on it prior to opening the facility.
April 5, 2012 at 7:29 AM
sorry said it was closed because of the article at the top which said it was. See like pretty simple preventitive measures. Probably only problem with sprinkler system is that wet mulch would lead to mosquitos! I still would not have any hesitation in to continue to bring my children to that playground. There would be a lot more airborne bacteria and diesease coming from the stables at Caulfield but noone does anything about that.
April 4, 2012 at 3:57 PM
Possibly I missed it. But where was Esakoff?
April 4, 2012 at 4:01 PM
Apologies – we forgot to include Esakoff’s ‘leave of absence’ which was granted at last council meeting until April 20th. She was also absent at last council meeting.
April 4, 2012 at 4:36 PM
Yes The doors are part of the need by the secret service like actions to try and keep the meeeting a secret. This was also achieved by starting it at 7.00pm which is 30 minutes earlier than the usual starting time. Maybe the claim that the meeting only covered no grpound but a postphonement of the planned activity councillors did not want ratepayers or their employers to know what they said when many of them mumbled into their beards so as to speak.
April 5, 2012 at 5:04 PM
Smart Aleck – Better still why don’t you and other grumblers take up the challenge and run for the forthcoming elections. Wear the shoes; do not
pit on them!
April 5, 2012 at 9:10 PM
This is the familiar response from people who don’t have the capacity to mount a valid argument so resort to mindless riposte’s like this. And/or people connected to or from the administration or Council.
Standing for elected office requires time and resources the overwhelmingly majority of residents don’t have. Our voice is heard through forums like this.
Pilling made the same empty comment a short while ago. And this coming from someone who relied on the finances and significant resources of a major political party to get himself elected. What hypocrisy!
April 5, 2012 at 10:33 PM
Autonomy – That is the point, “Standing for elected office requires time and resources, the overwhelmingly majority of residents don’t have” You can be a Smart Alec and use time to criticise on this forum. You guys should be ashamed of yourselves that none of you want to put your money where your mouth is! If the majority of people do not have the time (and busy making big bucks in their place of employment), why would they do a job of a Councillor which pays $27K per annum? Talk and criticising is cheap. Throw your hat in the ring or else desist from postings that only show your ignorance.
April 6, 2012 at 11:25 AM
Ah Shrek and Fiona. Let’s all just go to our naughty corner, keep quiet while those who have the time and resources and, in many cases, the desire to progress their personal careers have their way with us.
Prosecuting your case through the media can be as valuable as being in elected office. It’s called democracy.
To suggest forums like this aren’t valuable community tools and the only alternative to expressions of concern are either stand for election or keep quiet is political ignorance of the highest order.
April 5, 2012 at 11:53 PM
Is Neil Pilling a Mayor material? He seems to be wavering in his decision. The inexperienced Tang was responsible for nominating his Ross Town buddy for the position of Deputy Mayor. Neil needs to stand firm and challenge those that speak venom in the council chambers. Of late Pilling has been found to make a ‘U’ turn on Frank; who he once supported!