The bane of residents’ lives has undoubtedly been the creation of the Racecourse Special Committee – originally comprising Hyams, Lipshutz, and Pilling, and then, in November 2010, the addition of Esakoff. The coup was thus complete with the installation of the ‘gang of four’. Part of the argument used was that the 3 councillors serving as trustees had a ‘conflict of interest’ and that the Winky Pop decision eliminated Penhalluriack and early on Forge before she became a Trustee. We have therefore had the repeated spectacle of Magee, Tang, Whiteside, and now Forge and Penhalluriack being ‘sidelined’ because of their presumed conflict of interest. Lobo simply didn’t count it seems! That left the door fully ajar for the Special Committee to decide the fate of the C60 in April 2011 and the centre of the Racecourse.
We’ve revisited these meetings and found that:
- On the 23rd November, 2010 Penhalluriack and Forge moved the motion that the Special Committee be disbanded. It was defeated on the casting vote of the chairperson with Tang and Magee having declared a conflict of interest. Lobo voted with Penhalluriack and Forge. Pilling was absent
- Hyams and Lipshutz then got Esakoff elected to the committee – completing the rout – and setting up the ‘gang of four’.
What’s fascinating and continues to be fascinating is the consistent position taken by Tang, Forge, Magee as trustees. In all bar one instance when Magee felt he didn’t have a conflict of interest, all other occasions have had these individuals declaring a conflict. Even Penhalluriack has bought the line about his being Winky Popped!
It then becomes very, very interesting to go to Hansard and read the following extracts from the debate on the Local Government and Planning Legislation Amendment Act 2010. What’s important here, is that this bill received assent on the 14th September 2010 – well before the April decision on the c60 and the Centre of the Racecourse. Here’s what the Minister of the time (Wynne) had to say about the Amendment as well as the current Minister of Local Government, Jeanette Powell.
WYNN: A councillor or council officer will not be considered to have a conflict of interest because of a conflicting duty if the relevant duty is only a position held as a representative of the council on another organisation and as long as there is no remuneration for that position.
POWELL: The bill also exempts a person from a conflict of interest that may arise from a conflicting duty if the person was appointed to the relevant position as a representative of the council and does not receive any remuneration for that position. This will replace a similar exemption that was limited to not-for-profit organisations and did not rely on the person being a council representative. This was previously quite confusing for councillors who were council representatives on a referral body such as a catchment management authority or a planning authority.
In such cases, when the council dealt with an issue related to a particular body in council, the councillor who was a representative on that body had to disclose that they had a conflict of interest, had to not take part in the discussion or vote and was required to leave the room.
It was a silly measure because it meant that the person in the room with the most knowledge of that referral authority or the issue had to leave the room. It did not mean that that person had more of a conflict of interest than anybody else. This amendment clarifies that if a councillor is on a special committee as a representative of council, they do not have a conflict of interest. (11TH August 2010).
COMMENT
There was therefore, and still remains, absolutely no need for a Special Committee since Tang, Magee, Forge do NOT HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST according to the above. The Special Committee could have been voted out in November 2010. That of course would have dramatically altered the landscape and possibly had the potential to scuttle the unholy alliance between Newton, his little band of troopers, and the MRC. Instead we are still saddled with the most iniquitous and undemocratic committee in the history of this council. The committee should never have been set up, and nor should it exist now!
Glen Eira Debates 
June 20, 2012 at 12:18 AM
A terrific post Glen Eira and thank you for bringing this to light. It’s got me thinking. I’d bet my life that Newton knew all about this amendment and even the speeches. He’s forever publishing things from the department or government when it suits him to keep councillors under his thumb. Strange that there’s not a peep anywhere then or now about this amendment and what it means for trustees. The special committee ran roughshod over everything that residents said and that suited plenty of people apart from the mrc. The whole thing still stinks and I agree that the committee should go. All councillors should vote and be allowed to say what they think. I’m not expecting miracles because they’ll still get the numbers. Lobo’s a dead loss and thinks Newton is god and Pilling is to gullible or dumb to know how hes been duped. Tang I reckon will vote with his mates so that will give them the necessary 5 votes. But I want to see them squirm and try to justify how they’ve screwed residents. I’d also like to ask them whether selling their souls has been worth the price!
June 20, 2012 at 5:33 AM
The whole racecourse committee is the biggest con in the history of Glen Eira. It was set up to push C60 through whilst ignoring hundreds of residents concerns. Hyams, Lipshutz, Pilling and Esakoff have not had a committee meeting for over a year. The agreement with the MRC has been ignored. What is the committee going to do about it – SFA!
June 20, 2012 at 5:54 AM
Will any of this be discussed in a Council meeting? Unlikely. Always back the horse called “self interest”.
June 20, 2012 at 8:38 AM
Yep, Lipshutz, Hyams, Esakoff and Pilling have a lot to be ashamed off. But so do the other Councillor’s (who let themselves be hoodwinked) and the administration (who did the hoodwinking).
Time and time again you see Councillors accepting the administration’s line without doing basic checking even though residents are telling them that things are other than the admin line. The latest example is the Administration prepared so called Community Plan that weil be railroaded through.
Definitely time for a new broom
June 20, 2012 at 1:14 PM
The Trustees are an elitist secret society. Agendas invite “community” input but residents are never granted permission to speak or even attend these meetings. Minutes are never published and councillors lips as to what really goes on are zipped shut. To me this all signals the futility of having any councillor sit as a trustee. In numbers alone they cannot influence any outcome or decision. They are there simply as window dressing and to present an image of inclusiveness by the MRC. I think it would be far more beneficial if no councillor sat on the trustees and they felt free to oppose the vested self interest in an open and honest fashion. What we have got at present is nothing but a token with councillors failing in both – they have no power on the committee and hence aren’t capable of adequately representing their consituents. I think they could be far more useful as straight out councillors voicing their opposition loudly and often. This way they are gagged and useless.