The following provides residents with a glimpse into the behind the scenes machinations that have come to characterise this administration and councillors. First we present part of the in camera minutes of 20th September 2011 which were not reproduced in any public minutes. However in the minutes of 22nd November 2011 there is a new resolution which bears a striking resemblance to the unpublished one. The in camera minutes of 20th September state –
Crs Tang/Hyams
In relation to Cr Penhalluriack’s 9 August right of reply Council:
- 1. Notes that On 9 August 2011 Cr Frank Penhalluriack made a Right of Reply in which he stated:-
“The article refers to a legal stoush, and claims that residents are saying that Council has sought legal advice concerning allegations that I have bullied our Chief Executive Officer, Mr Andrew Newton. I am embarrassed and demeaned by such an unfounded allegation reaching publication in such a widely circulated newspaper. And I can safely presume that our Chief Executive Officer will also suffer this embarrassment.”
2. Considers that the above statement is likely to mislead or deceive.
3. Requested Cr Penhalluriack to withdraw this statement and he has not done so.
4. Considers that had Council rebutted the statement at that time, or were Council to do so in a public forum, it may constitute a breach of confidentiality. Council therefore notes that the comments were likely to mislead or deceive and accordingly, Council disassociates itself from those comments (our emphasis)
DIVISION
Cr Forge called for a Division on the voting of the Motion.
FOR AGAINST
Cr Esakoff Cr Penhalluriack
Cr Lobo Cr Forge
Cr Lipshutz Cr Magee
Cr Tang
Cr Hayms
Cr Pilling
On the basis of the Division the Chairperson declared the Motion CARRIED.
Then wonder of wonders, the minutes of 22nd November contain this resolution –
Crs Lipshutz/Tang
In relation to Cr Penhalluriack’s 9 August Right of Reply, Council:
1. Notes that on 9 August 2011 Cr Frank Penhalluriack made a Right of Reply in which he stated in part:
“The article refers to a legal stoush, and claims that residents are saying that Council has sought legal advice concerning allegations that I have bullied our Chief Executive Officer, Mr Andrew Newton. I am embarrassed and demeaned by such an unfounded allegation reaching publication in such a widely circulated newspaper. And I can safely presume that our Chief Executive Officer will also suffer this embarrassment.”
2. Resolves to disassociate itself from the comments made by Cr Penhalluriack referred to in paragraph 1 above.
3. That this resolution be incorporated in to the public record of this meeting.
The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously.
COMMENTS
Readers need to keep in mind that this second resolution happened to take place when Penhalluriack (and Lobo) were on leave. It also raises questions as to why two councillors changed their votes and what kind of pressures may have been applied to ensure that the resulting vote was unanimous? As to the logic of the argument, well, we’ve already commented on that in our November 2011 post, but it’s worth reiterating that there is a vast difference between potentially breaching confidentiality as stated in the first resolution and the conclusion that ‘the comments were likely to mislead or deceive’. Further, Council at this point in time had not revealed that O’Neill had been hired, so by including the ‘fresh’ resolution in the minutes of 22nd November they were probably contravening their own confidentiality embargo!!!
Readers may well ask, what’s the point of two similar resolutions? Is this simple ‘damage control’? More muck raking? Or so that the word ‘unanimous’ can be put at the bottom and continue the pretence that this is a united council? Please note again who are the primary ‘little helpers’.
Glen Eira Debates 
May 31, 2012 at 10:49 PM
Lipshutz, Hyams Tang. What a surprise. The brownie points with Newton must stack up a mile high by now.
May 31, 2012 at 11:31 PM
The agenda of 20 Sept imply this involved “legal advice”. The amounts that have been spent on lawyers on this kind of trivia is obscene and irresponsible. I don’t know who decides on the need for “legal advice” but if it is councillors then they aren’t up to handling public monies in a responsible fashion. If it’s officers then councillors need to pass a resolution that puts a halt to this insanity.
June 1, 2012 at 11:05 AM
how will they pay for this? increase rates off course It is like the Booran Reservoir redevelopment. Even though they are getting public input the popular opinion is that a soccer pitch is going to be built regardless. Who will pay for this minority yes the ratepayers. Who pays for MRC’s ( property developer/race club) subsidised rates yes it is you and I.
June 1, 2012 at 11:22 AM
by the way talking about the MRC. Did anyone see the signs up for Silvers Circus at the racecourse. That is less than a year since the last one. Residents are taken for mugs
June 1, 2012 at 1:31 PM
Maybe with the funds the MRC receives for hiring out the racecourse to Silvers, it could replace the fencing as promised in its seemingly abandoned agreement with Lipshutz, Pilling, Hyams and Esakoff. Part of it has already fallen over on the north end of Queens Avenue and has created a safety issue. I suppose Council will build another pedestrian fence around that also.
June 1, 2012 at 11:09 AM
Two bites at the cherry is becoming boring. There’s the ceo special committee that plainly went wrong somehow otherwise they wouldn’t have bothered to dissolve the first committee and three weeks later set up another one, and now this. Incompetence written all over it and that’s with three hot shot lawyers as councillors.
June 1, 2012 at 5:12 PM
Methinks there should be a few red faces here from those councillors who spout transparency and fair play. What about it Lobo, Pilling, Magee, Forge. Words are dirt cheap aren’t they?
June 1, 2012 at 8:06 PM
I agree but think you should have included Penhalluriack in your list. Hyams, Lipshutz, Esakoff and Tang lack transparency and fair play. Speaking of such(and as an old boy) I recall old ‘unco’ Newton from his days at the old school in Glenferrie Rd. Managed to manipulate (MODERATORS: rest of sentence deleted)