Hyams does not read our blog anymore. That’s why at last council meeting he was at great pains to try and explain why he is now voting to accept the Community Plan, when several years ago as a private citizen he wrote a submission which argued strongly against the rush to introduce a community plan just months prior to the 2008 council elections. Our viewpoint was, and is, that the circumstances are identical and therefore we wished to see whether consistency of conviction was a higher priority than the political expediency of voting with your mates.
Not only did he move the motion to accept the Plan, but his argument on this issue was basically as follows: It was none other than Cr Penhalluriack who informed him that ‘a blog’ which Penhalluriack ‘claimed not to read’ …’argued that I would be completely inconsistent if I’ took at different position this time. Hyams of course ‘did make that exact same point’ in assemblies, but the ‘will of the majority of councillors’ was to go ahead. He therefore, poor fellow, was faced with the dilemma of ‘stick(ing) my heels in’ and continue arguing, or ‘I could accept that that was the will of the majority’ and help making the plan the best possible. This second option was the one that was ‘more constructive’. He then reminded the gallery that if the next council wasn’t happy, they could change it.
The trouble with such an argument is that residents who haven’t attended meetings will simply look at the minutes and see once again the charade of a united council front – the ‘club’ all operating in unison. More importantly, residents are therefore deceived as to the actual opinion of each councillor. Would Hyams have said anything if we hadn’t blown his cover? Would he simply have prattled on and left out this attempt to answer our criticism? We believe that his previous positiion would have conveniently been forgotten!
Councillors are elected to represent their community. It is therefore incumbent on them to express an honest and open view and to vote according to their conscience and community views – not what their mates do and not to continually cow tow to the public relations mentality that permeates every action of this council. Consensus is fine; blind uniformity is an abomination as is the failure to present individual views in open council.
Glen Eira Debates 
June 28, 2012 at 5:24 PM
I am confused. When will the Council put forward a Council Plan. Never mind the community plan or is it the same thing? Are the Glen Eira Council going it alone and moving away from all the other Councils?
June 28, 2012 at 6:24 PM
I’ve got a question. Has Hyams breached the councillor code of conduct? I’ve taken another look at the code and found this clause:
Councillors’ decisions are made in Statutory Council Meetings.
In discussions leading up to such decisions, in Assembly of
Councillor Meetings not open to the public, Councillors may
explore a range of positions and express a range of views.
Those views must not be reported outside those meetings. To
do so would discourage full discussion of developing issues and
the ability for Councillors to firm up their views as questions are
answered and information provided. Councillors’ accountability
is for their vote and statements in support of their vote at the
time that the matter is decided in the Statutory Meeting.
“Those views must not be reported outside those meetings”. This is exactly what Hyams did, telling us that he argued in favour of delaying the community plan.
June 28, 2012 at 7:07 PM
Ignorance is bliss. While Cr Hyams can make the dubious claim that he doesn’t read this blog, its his attitude to a vocal and informed section of the community that concerns me. The Councillor Code of Conduct talks about respect, including having “due regard to the opinions, beliefs, rights and responsibilities of other Councillors, Council officers and other persons”. And to strengthen the message, under Community Engagement: “Councillors must listen to community views, be responsive to them and adequately communicate the attitudes and decisions of the Council”.
Even the controversial Section 4.6.2 seeks a balance between being honest and presenting Council as “effective and cohesive”. Not that its been carefully edited: “Relevant information should not be available to some parties but not others”. The gist is that relevant information should not be available to anybody.
How the heck has the section on transparency survived: “Councillors have a duty to be as transparent as possible about their decisions and actions, giving reasons for decision and restricting information only when the wider public interest clearly demands”. Information keeps getting suppressed regardless of the wider public interest.
In the most recent meeting, to adopt a new Council Plan, Strategic Resource Plan, and Budget, Cr Hyams indicates he knew the decision of his fellow councillors before the meeting, and that influenced his vote. This is at odds with S4.8.2: “Councillors’ decisions are made in Statutory Council Meetings”. Apparently not.
I’m also unhappy with Cr Hyams’ argument that if a new Council doesn’t like the Plan they can change it. They can, certainly, but the money to fund a competent job with real objectives, strategies, measures and metrics has been blown.
Alice: Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here?
The Cat: That depends a good deal on where you want to get to
Alice: I don’t much care where.
The Cat: Then it doesn’t much matter which way you go.
Alice: …so long as I get somewhere.
The Cat: Oh, you’re sure to do that, if only you walk long enough.
June 28, 2012 at 9:44 PM
Lobo hasn’t met his statutory duties. He kept mum. We’ve no idea why he voted the way he did. Then again if Hyams voted with the gang because they outnumbered him then that’s also a pretty poor excuse. Reading these bits from the code of conduct shows what a disaster it is. Both bits basically contradict each other. For that we’ve got Lipshutz, Hyams, Esakoff and Tang to thank.
June 29, 2012 at 9:38 AM
Have any other people in Caulfield North or East been hearing the circus at night. I live about 250 metres away and can hear it. It would be ok if it was going for a week but it is going for a month.
June 29, 2012 at 11:15 AM
Comments from the online Leader on c60 -progress”
Terry writes:
Posted on 28 Jun 12 at 01:01pm
A 20 story building and an influx of over 2000 people will completely overwhelme the whole area. 20 stories in a the middle of suburban Melbourne, what on earth for? Before the election the local Liberal MP opposed it, now he is in favour. Why the backflip?
Ted writes:
Posted on 27 Jun 12 at 01:11pm
I was hoping the ombudsman woud investigate the “deal” between the Brumby Government and the race club, to give them the crown land that makes up part of this massive monster. It was all done behind closed doors when it is public land that was covered by the orginal queens covernant of 1879. There are manyt more questions than answers here.
Jane writes:
Posted on 26 Jun 12 at 07:15pm
It is disappointing that this is the only consultation taking place with residents. I understand that even though the development was approved by Council and the state government, the agreement on ten centre of the racecourse is no longer going ahead. If so, this is devastating. Where are the Councillors and what are they doing as well as local member David Southwick?
Mike writes:
Posted on 26 Jun 12 at 01:20pm
The score: Developers donations – 1, residents and infrastructure – nil.
Michael writes:
Posted on 26 Jun 12 at 11:06am
There was an agreement on improving the racecourse that was signed by the Melbourne Racing Club and by Councillors Hyams, Lipshutz, Esakoff and Pilling. In the agreement, certain improvements had to be completed by 27 April 2012. Unfortunately nothing has happened and no communication provided to the community. In the meantime, the MRC have proceeded with the development. C’mon Councillors, how about following up on the agreement and keeping the MRC accountable.
June 29, 2012 at 11:51 AM
Remember these are the only ones they have decided to publish. There could be a lot more!
June 29, 2012 at 4:54 PM
The only circus I know of in Caulfield is on the corner of Glen Eira and Hawthorn Roads. Hyams, Esakoff, Pilling and Lipshutz suggest in return for gifting the MRC land and approving the over the top C60 agreement, the MRC should improve the centre of the racecourse. The MRC say come in spinner and agree. In fact formally sign an agreement along with David Southwick, State member (it used to be on the Council website for 12 months until Newton realised it wasn’t going to happen). Then the MRC proceed with the development plans, even to the point of now selecting the builder. Meanwhile the agreement has been ripped up and neither Council or Southwick is doing anything about it. Bring in the clowns.
June 29, 2012 at 11:43 AM
Peter Jenkins – I cannot understand your reasoning that every Councillor has to talk. Have you followed the parliament, how many M.P’s sit and listen and only talk and vote when it is necessary? How many M.P’s have spoken on Asylum seekers?
June 29, 2012 at 7:30 PM
I actually agree with you anon, not everyone has to talk nor do they have to talk on everything (something Lipshutz should take note of), however, everyone has to talk sometime and the more important the issue the more they should talk.
Unfortunately in Lobo’s case he talked up big at first then for some reason said nothing for about 3 years. Now, in election year, he sometimes speaks and unfortunately his usually picks minor issues and frequently misses the point of those minor issues. That he is hard working and caring, I don’t doubt – why else would he make himself available to residents every Saturday morning. However, it is his ability to discern (ie. major vs. minor, effective vs. ineffective) that is causing me to question him.
June 29, 2012 at 8:56 PM
Lee K – have you considered becoming a Councillor?
June 30, 2012 at 7:53 AM
Am giving it serious consideration
June 30, 2012 at 10:29 AM
I would like to vote for you, will you stand as Lee K?
June 30, 2012 at 8:38 PM
If I do decide to stand the name will be recognisable.
July 4, 2012 at 10:44 PM
How recognisable – can you give us a hint?