Lipshutz got the ball rolling tonight with an incredible motion – to rewrite history and the official record. When Hyams called for confirmation of minutes Lipshutz moved that the minutes of 10th April be amended in relation to Penhalluriack’s questions and Lipshutz’s point of order inserted. He claimed that the questions were ‘a continuation of the bullying behaviour’ as ‘noted in the Ombudsman’s report”. Hyams asked for a seconder. There was a very long silence and in the end, Hyams seconded the motion himself.
LIPSHUTZ: Said that Penhalluriack asked a ‘series of questions’ and on the 5th question he raised a point of order. Stated again that the point of order was upheld by Hyams and ‘therefore the minutes do not properly reflect that’.
HYAMS: agreed that what’s there currently is ‘more commentary’ than an account of ‘what actually happened at the meeting’. Said that his ‘recollection’ of the events was about the three points of order that Lipshutz raised and that he ruled in favour of them.
PENHALLURIACK: “I asked a series of questions……(he paused after the first one and got Hyams permission to continue)….’those questions are vital…..(since councillors will be voting on re-opening the mulch facility)……’that is council’s right’….’but the minutes are inaccurate because they don’t record the fact that I had asked 4 questions’ (and we didn’t get notice of Lipshutz’s motion in assembly)….’the four questions should have been put on the record…they should be answered by the CEO (or relevant officer)…..Cr Lipshutz is famous for….leaping to his feet to stop me from speaking….(he should have done this with the first question but he didn’t)…(same for 2nd, 3rd, and 4th question)…..’during the 5th….he suddenly woke up…..or (decided to) stop me at that point’….(Said that Hyams pointed out that Glen Eira’s meeting procedures in the Local Law) ‘protect you from my motion of dissent’….’so even though there may have been a majority of councillors who didn’t like what you were doing….you weren’t prepared to put it to the vote’….(which democratic institutions) ‘love doing’….(You said) ‘I rule, I am the Mayor’ …(the Mayor of) ‘toss of the coin’….’I will not listen to your motion of dissent and I will not consult with fellow councillors’….’that defies logic that a point of order can go backwards’ (and delete earlier questions)….’each of my questions covered different matters’…
Hyams interrupted saying that Penhalluriack’s 3 minutes were up. A vote to extend time was taken and passed unanimously.
PENHALLURIACK: ‘we have the tape recording of the meeting’ (so can confirm what) “I’m saying is correct’…’there was silence…..until the 5th question….(Told councillors to refer to the minutes of the assembly of 10th April where it says ‘Councillor questions’ and quoted that Penhalluriack advised he had a ‘list of questions’)….’not a question….a list of questions’….’I am now demanding that this council supports me in getting those questions answered’….’councillors deserve explicit answers before they embark’ (on decisions on the agenda tonight).
HYAMS: said he wanted to ask Burke a ‘couple of questions’.
‘Is there anything in our Local Law at all that would have allowed me to do that?’ (ie put the dissent motion to a vote). Burke answered ‘No there’s not’. Next question was whether the Local Law permitted the Mayor to ‘decide all points of order?’. Burke stated that ‘the Local Law is quite clear….absolutely clear…’. Hyams then asked if Burke had heard him say ‘I am the Mayor and what I say goes’?..Burke said that he doesn’t have a ‘recollection’ of what Penhalluriack alleges Hyams said. Hyams then said that he ‘understands that you’ve listened to the tape of this discussion’….’does it reflect that all the questions were ruled out of order?’ Burke confirmed this.
LIPSHUTZ: asked Burke that when he moved the point of order whether he meant all questions?
BURKE: responded that the point of order ‘was in relation to all questions’.
PENHALLURIACK: said that in any meeting of ‘elected representatives’…..’is it possible to put anything to the vote?’
BURKE asked Penhalluriack to ‘be more specific’.
PENHALLURIACK: Agreed that the Local Law states that the Mayor can decide but ‘it does not say that the Mayor cannot democratically ask his councillors’ to vote….’that’s similar to when the Mayor has the casting vote….(and his obligation is to preserve the status quo)…’the law doesn’t say he must, tradition says he will’.
BURKE: stated that he’s only got the Local Law and that says that the Mayor is the final ‘arbiter’.
PENHALLURIACK: said that Burke is avoiding the question and asked whether ‘it was not possible for the Mayor to seek the advice’ of his councillors…..
BURKE: ‘…..ultimately (chairperson has to ensure that the)’business of council is done….in good order….(since there is the Local Law then it would be) ‘most unusual to move away from that’….there’s nothing to stop the Chairperson from doing that ( but he doesn’t have to).
PENAHLLURIACK: stated that he didn’t say that the chair ‘has to do that’…..
HYAMS: interrupted by asking if Penhalluriack was asking a question or making a statement.
PENHALLURIACK: Asked Burke that when he listened to the tapes whether he noticed a ‘pause’ between the series of questions
BURKE responded that he didn’t
PENHALLURIACK asked for a copy of the tape
BURKE: “I will need to consider that request Councillor’
PENHALLURIACK: Why?
BURKE: ‘That’s my answer Cr Penhalluriack’.
LOBO: Said that he didn’t come to the council meeting for the election of the Mayor because he ‘wasn’t well’…..(Penhalluriack shouldn’t have said that Hyams is a Mayor) ‘by toss of the coin…you have to respect the seat’.
PENHALLURIACK: asked permission to answer but Hyams said it wasn’t a question. Penhalluriack said his comments weren’t a reflection on Lobo. Hyams then said that Penhalluriack is ‘allowed to speak if you feel you’ve been misrepresented’.
LIPSHUTZ: Claimed that his habit of ‘jumping up’ is ‘not true’….(he was concerned that Penhalluriack not continue with behaviour)…’that the ombudsman and the O’Neill report (condemend)….’I’m also concerned….that the questions be proper….’not just Penhalluriack….if any councillor, including myself embark on that course (then he’d want someone to raise a point of order)….(said that Penhalluriack’s claim about ‘no notice) ‘that’s not true either….(said that at the pre-meeting he gave a) ‘clear indication’….’that I may raise a point of order’….(said that Penhalluriack was trying to) ‘revive the same motion that he had’ (before)…’reality is….listened to the question to see how far….by the 5th question pretty clear ….the whole totality of those questions were the subject of my concern…’list of questions and they were dealt with as one….(point of order was upheld)’and the minutes should reflect that’….
MOTION PUT and CARRIED. Penhalluriack called for a division. FOR – Esakoff, Lipshutz, Lobo, Hyams. AGAINST: Magee, Penhalluriack
IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT FORGE AND TANG WERE APOLOGIES. PILLING WAS ABSENT AND NO APOLOGY TENDERED.
Glen Eira Debates 
May 2, 2012 at 1:28 AM
Anyone who is faintly aware of the principles of good governance or the law should be aware that Council Administration is accountable to Councillors (the elected representatives of the community). Fact, indisputable.
That a Councillor requesting a copy of the tape recording of his “disputed” comments made at an open Council meeting can be denied or temporarily held back is inconceivable – by any standards Penhalluriack’s request is reasonable. An agreement to provide the tape at a later date would have been sufficient to enable the issue to be held over and resolved at the next Council meeting. Instead we get responses from the Admin that clearly indicates they do not think they are accountable to Crs. The total silence from the other Crs. in attendance (Hyams, Esakoff, Lipshutz, Lobo and Magee) is acquiescence and re-inforcement of the Admin’s view. Such a view is unacceptable.
Clearly this Council is dysfunctional and is in desparate need of change. Also equally clear is that this Council’s much publicised view of it’s own dyfunctionaltiy is not that supported by the above post or the community.
May 2, 2012 at 6:22 AM
This Council should get kindergarten funding, though even children behave and respect each other better!
May 2, 2012 at 10:48 AM
The dodgy minutes of this council have never included points of order. Suddenly they become priceless so that more crap can be poured onto Penhalluriack in case anybody bothers to read the garbage. It also doesn’t hurt if Lipshutz and Hyams both come out looking like Saints according to this new version of the minutes. If only all minutes were as extensive as Lipshutz wants this set to be.
May 2, 2012 at 12:05 PM
If Penhalluriack’s claim that Lipshutz did not provide notice of his intended motion is correct, then it looks like we’re again in the territory of the gang riding roughshod over their own imposed rules and regulations. According to the post Lipshutz stated that he gave a “clear indication”. That’s not what the directive said. Councillors are supposed to provide written notice. It’s obvious though that this rule is only enforced against Penhalluriack which would give the gang time to scheme in order to silence him, or out flank him. This is not how councils should be run.
Gagging Penhalluriack time and time again, or rewriting minutes to suit the nasty agendas of certain individuals, is to be deplored. If councillors and especially officers are unwilling to answer reasonable questions then there is no open government and no accountability. The impression that’s created is that there must be something to hide. If there wasn’t then questions would be answered fully.
May 2, 2012 at 12:18 PM
Sounds like Lobo has miraculously risen from the dead and is alive and well and living in Lipshutz and Hyams pocket. Letters in the Leader and front page picture today. Must be election time.
May 2, 2012 at 2:08 PM
Cr. Lobo is a passenger. He contributes very little to the Glen Eira Counci in as much he says little. He claims he was ill so that he couldn’t turn up to vote. That is not credible, It is likely he took a political decsion as he wanted to sit on the fence not knowing whether to support Hyams or Magee. His behaviour is not what we should all expect from a community leader. The number plates on his car say alot about Cr Lobo.. He will need a dramatic increase in votes. May have to fling the number plates come October.
May 3, 2012 at 10:20 AM
Hello Faceless Anonymous people
I was informed that Cr. Lobo in the last council meetingchallenged all annoymous and faceless people to put their names across the sh*t they post on this gossip forum. Why don’t you have the guts to put your real name?. Stop being phoney. Hiding behind our petticoats does not give any credibility to you. I had a word with few councillors and they have informed me that they would be happy to respond allegations if people writing on this forum had the b*lls to give their correct name and contact details.
May 3, 2012 at 10:58 AM
Lilly – tell me girl, have you signed your real name and if so where is the surname and contact details. Not a hell of a lot different to signing anonymously if you ask me.
As for Councillor’s being willing to respond to allegations if only people would sign their names. Yeah right Lilly – ever tried emailing them or writing to them via snail mail – not only will it take months to get a response but the response will be double speak or a flat out no.
The success of this blog is due to non-performing, non-questioning Councillors and the level of frustration that is causing residents. Ask yourself if Councillors were doing what they are supposed to would this blog be as successful as it is? At over 252K hits since the blog started (I think about 2 years ago), that’s almost twice the last reported population of Glen Eira.
May 3, 2012 at 11:54 AM
Steller, what is your surname and correct contact number – home and mobile? I will then give you mine. Let all those coward anonymous give their names and contact numbers as well or cease this unnecessary witch hunt. Alternatively, please stand for the local election rather than criticising. It will then show everyone in Glen Eira what sort of person/s you are.
252L hits are by the same people (anonymous) who have nothing to do and in between work and play keep hitting the blog at least 50 times a day. The owner of the blog we we all know the name, would have been responsible for half of the hits including those councillors who do not get their way. Go tell it to the swans!
May 3, 2012 at 12:11 PM
Nice one Nic. Now go back to work. See you at the races.
May 3, 2012 at 12:31 PM
Hello Lilly- Suggest u go & get yourself educated about politics first & then get back to me – I’ll give you all the details about me you want.
I havent heard any of ur views about anything to do with what might be of concern to the residents/ratepayers/community- are you a little minion of the Council or r u just naive?
May 3, 2012 at 8:15 PM
What is your phone number Jan and where do you live?
May 3, 2012 at 9:09 PM
No: 9 Jan, January, Jeanette, Janet, Jamaica, Jana – are you educated in politics or gossip? What are your credentials? What is your address and telephone number. If you have any credibility you will comply with these questions. Are you a “know everything”? and not a follower any anything?
May 3, 2012 at 9:22 PM
This is the last comment we will put up of this nature. It is irrelevant to the topic.
May 4, 2012 at 8:22 AM
Good job Gleneira. I agree it is irrelevant to the topic and quite frankly can’t see how a person exercising their legal right to remain anonymous while expressing their opinion becomes a bigger issue than the issue being discussed.
May 4, 2012 at 8:39 AM
Gleneira, instead of adopting the above reasonable approach to the Lilly/Lilly Pillies of this world, why don’t you take a leaf out of Council’s book – declare a topic (in this case anonymity) as being harrassment and refuse to publish such postings.
May 5, 2012 at 7:49 AM
Well said, Kev!
May 5, 2012 at 11:25 PM
The cock has to lay an egg for Gleneira to accept good work done by the Council. Then only Gleneira will hatch the egg.
May 6, 2012 at 4:48 PM
Anon 6 – If you are talking so much, why don’t you put your hands up rather than playing pocket billiards that you are used to? You should be asked to write something about others without naming yourself. Anyone under Anon can write anything i.e. you can write about your husband or wife. Wake up you nameless?
May 8, 2012 at 11:12 PM
Number 5 – Is that you Cr. Magee?