Full and honest responses to public questions are difficult to find in Glen Eira. Spin, dissembling, and verbal gymnastics are the hallmark of what repeatedly occurs. Our comments in this post relate to one specific question:

“At the Council meeting of February 28th, both Crs Esakoff and Lipshutz moved motions asking for ‘Requests for Reports’ on the Lord Reserve/E.E. Gunn Pavilions and removal of the Caulfield Park depot respectively. Did both of these councillors provide written notice to other councillors prior to calling for these reports as mandated by the ‘no surprises’ clause within the code of conduct and the council resolution passed on the 22nd November 2011?” 

The Mayor read Council’s response. He said: “You have misrepresented both the Code of Conduct and the resolution of 22nd ovember 2011. While Clause 2.4.3 of the Code of Conduct requires Councillors to demonstrate ‘commitment to consult with other Councillors, within the decision making framework and with no surprises’, there is no requirement for prior written notice. As both Councillors, prior to making their requests for reports, verbally foreshadowed their intention to do so if another motion was successful, there was no breach of the Code of Conduct.

The resolution of 22nd November “strongly encourages all councillors to submit all motions to the Mayor and councillors in writing prior to a Council meeting, except where the motion arises during the course of the meeting or in extraordinary circumstances.” The motions were not submitted in writing, but clearly arose during the course of the meeting, as they were requested in response to the resolution passed at item 9.7, which introduced a matter to Council’s budgetary discussions.

Therefore, Councillors Esakoff and Lipshutz did not act in contravention of the resolution of November 22nd in making their requests for reports, as your question implies, and nor did the remainder of the Councillors in unanimously supporting those requests.”

We do not accept this response as an accurate reflection of what occurred on the 28th February. The requests for reports by both Lipshutz and Esakoff were NOT a ‘natural’ outcome of the discussion on the Victory Park pavilion and nor was there any mention of other motions. Simply stating that a request for a report is ‘foreshadowed’ does not adhere to sufficient notice. Here is what happened –

LIPSHUTZ: spoke about priorities and how this would mean ‘dropping things off the budget and putting other things on the budget. Called the motion ‘aspirational’ and that there were plenty of other ‘aspirational’ projects he’d like to see done such as the removal of the depot from Caulfield Park. Said that he would foreshadow seeking a report on this later. ’If I was cynical and I’m not, I would say that this is an election year ….councillors coming along with their own pet projects.….we need to look at this overall’ Echoed Tang and Esakoff about the necessity for ‘consultation’ with the clubs. Ended up by arguing that ‘what this motion does is places the issue of Victory Park on the table’ but he also stated ‘I don’t think it binds us….it is aspirational’. Ended up by again referring to an election year and that councillors will have to work out their priorities.

ESAKOFF:  Stated that this solved some things but she still had ‘concerns’. Worried that it was being ‘rushed through’ (She’d) ‘like something to come back to us in writing not necessarily to a council meeting’ about the E.E Gunn and Hex Pavilion. She said that ‘I would like something by way of a report’ on female facilities at these ovals. Worried that this motions would cause ‘a great deal of angst’ (from clubs)’ because they are waiting, not lobbying, because they ’know there’s a strategy in place’. Couldn’t therefore vote for the motion because it wasn’t ‘right’.

Please note that in neither of these statements is there any indication that ‘prior notice’ was given to other councillors which is in accord with the ‘no surprises’ policy. Secondly there is nothing in these statements which logically tie in with the eventually passed resolution on the Victory Park pavilion.

Perhaps the most damning indictment of this council’s attempt to fudge the facts and to excuse the clear breach of their own rules is this email written by Cr Neil Pilling to other councillors following the meeting of 28th February. We cite this in its entirety –

From: neil pilling
Sent: Wednesday, 29 February 2012 12:14:41 AM (UTC+10:00) Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney
To: Cr. Jamie Hyams; Cr. Jim Magee; Cr. Oscar Lobo; Cr. Margaret Esakoff; Cr. Steven Tang; Cr. Cheryl Forge; Cr. Frank Penhalluriack; Cr. Michael Lipshutz; Cr. Neil Pilling
Subject: reports requested tonite and the ‘no surprises’ agreed CR guidelines

Hi All,

Looking back on tonights proceedings and the reports requested in hindsight both the Depot and Lords/Ee gunn reports should have been at least discouraged and not sought.

They both controvene our agreed policy of giving due notice in writing as articulated in a motion passed late last year- This was voted for unanimously from memory so as to prevent ‘reports on the run’ and also i feel to  prevent ‘tactical manouvers’ in a council meeting to undermine motions put.

Whilst the subject matters of both reports is reasonable , this lack of notice is something feel we should guard against in future,

regards Neil”

We leave readers to draw their own conclusions as to the honesty and governance that occurs in Glen Eira, and in particular the role of the Mayor in permitting such tactics to go unchallenged.