The fun and games began with several of the first items on last night’s agenda – a petition, committee minutes, records of assembly minutes, and the motions to accept them. This is what happened.
The petition was from a group of traders who queried why unnecessary footpath works were taking place outside their shops. They highlighted the impact this had on their businesses in these hard financial times as well as the fact that there had been no warning, no consultation, and no justification for the necessity of these works. We conclude: another perfect example of this council’s failure to consider, much less consult with residents prior to spending their money on arguable needless works! We also note that the names of the traders weren’t mentioned!
Pilling moved that the minutes of the Community Consultation committee and the Arts & Culture committee be adopted but that the minutes of the Environment Committee be ‘deferred until next Council Meeting’. Esakoff seconded. Pilling’s argument for deferring one set of minutes was that the last Environment Committee meeting was ‘long’ and ‘a lot of issues’ were discussed. He stated that draft minutes had been circulated but 2 members were overseas and there was some ‘conjecture’ and that it was important to get ‘some different views’ on ‘what was recorded’. He therefore wanted to defer until everyone was back. Esakoff then reported on the other two committees. Motion was passed unanimously.
Next item was the Records of Assembly. Penhalluriack requested that one record be ‘treated separately’. The motion was then put by Magee that this occur. Penhalluriack then spoke about the minutes of 19th June and the references to himself in these minutes. He moved that the records be accepted except for the part which stated: “Cr Penhalluriack – raised a matter of rumours being circulated saying that he is costing the Council a lot of money by fighting the Ombudsman and Council. In relation to the recent media coverage aboutjk an illegal rooming house operating from a property he owns, Cr Penhalluriack said that backpackers were using the property and that he did not know who they were.” Penhalluriack wanted to amend this so that it read that he did raised the issue of rumours. He had ‘received an email from journalists’ and that he had said that ‘these rumours are malicious’…..’one councillor in particular had affected his reputation’….’backpackers had left a mess’….’he was not costing Council anything….as Council was taking action against him’…’it is tough being Cr Penhalluriack in this council’…..’Mayor reminded council’ that there’s independent ‘legal advice’. Forge seconded.
Penhalluriack then went on to speak to the amendment. He said that the original draft minutes had been ‘discussed around the table’ at the Assembly and the ‘majority said that should remain as is’….’for some reason….the minutes were changed’ and that’s why he was moving this motion.
PILLING then spoke against and said that he’s got a ‘bit of an issue’ with what Penhalluriack wants to put in the minutes. He said that council wants ‘clarity’ in minutes and what Penhalluriack wants to put in represents a ‘discussion’ and not just ‘items’. It’s important to be ‘consistent’ …’irrespective of personalities’…’and conjecture’….(Penhalluriack is) ‘setting a precedent here and treating this issue in a different way to other issues’ so he’s voting against it.
MAGEE: stated that he couldn’t see anything wrong with ‘having more detail’…..’takes anything away from the report’….’makes it clearer for people to understand’. Conceded that there is a ‘system where we’re consistent’….’but when a councillor decides that he wants more information’….’I would certainly find it difficult to vote against that’ since it’s really about the ‘transparency of the minutes’. More detail helps people who are reading it. ‘I do understand that over the years we do have a protocol…..is important to be consistent…..(overall being individuals that Council) ‘has to accommodate those issues’.
HYAMS: agreed with Pilling that ‘if we start putting in verbatim speeches by councillors’ that means that any councillor who thinks he’s got ‘anything good or popular to say’ that the argument would then be that this should go into the minutes. Referred to the Act that only demanded topics and conflict of interest disclosures so ‘we already go far above what’s required’ and therefore should ‘keep it to our usual practice’.
PENHALLURIACK: said that he supports ‘minimalistic reporting’….’but unfortunately the author of these minutes does not’. Said that the records of assemblies for ‘week after week after week’ there is ‘Cr Penhalluriack verbatim’. Magee then raised a point of order that since Burke was absent it wasn’t fair what Penhalluriack was saying because the individual wasn’t present to defend himself. Hyams than warned Penhalluriack to ‘try and not say anything that might need to be defended’. Penhalluriack said he handed named anyone and that ‘the minutes as written’ have been ‘inconsistent’. He then referred to the immediate item above the one he read out which simply said ‘Cr Lipshutz –….. Statue’….’that means almost nothing to anybody’ (referred to a statue by Boyd that was in the front garden of council has now been removed and put outside GESAC) ‘Unless you have that information….that means nothing’…’what I’ve quoted to the meeting was in the original set of minutes….and let’s not forget he who writes the minutes writes history’…..’Ive been asking for a long time…whether we follow the Local Government Department’s recommendations (on minutes) or go along the path we’ve been going along for quite some time’.
Hyams put the motion to the vote. For – Penhalluriack, Magee, Forge. Against Hyams, Lipshutz, Esakoff, Pilling, Lobo. Motion defeated.
COMMENTS: Pilling’s inconsistency, if not straight out hypocrisy is quite unbelievable here. His argument for deferring the Environment Committee Meeting minutes was that it was a long meeting, many issues discussed and that people were overseas – so presumeably everyone should have a right to voice their opinion on the final set of minutes. According to Penhalluriack, the majority of councillors agreed to the draft version of the minutes, yet these were changed presumeably by Burke. How then can Pilling argue on the one hand that there should be consensus about minutes and then within a few nano-seconds basically disown this very same argument when it comes to Penhalluriack?
Interestingly, we have commented previously on how many of these Records Assembly feature (in far greater detail than for anyone else) every single utterance by Penhalluriack. We also commented at the time that we find it impossible to believe that Lipshutz sits there quietly without ever opening his mouth – judging by the number of times he is named in these minutes.
In the end, this entire episode is distasteful and further proof of the manipulations and how desperately there must be a complete overhaul of the way that minutes are drafted, presented, and doctored by this council. There simply is no consistency across any committee meetings or assemblies. Truth, transparency and governance are the inevitable victims in such shameful practices.
Glen Eira Debates 
July 25, 2012 at 12:33 PM
None of this is surprising. Pilling and Lobo have sold out big time. From a promising start they both morphed into Newton and Lipshutz clones. They’ve signalled that they don’t give a stuff about what’s right and good for residents. Only what’s good for them. Ya gotta wonder what the pay off is?
July 25, 2012 at 2:58 PM
Smart Aleck – you do go to the council meetings and yet you seem to have opinions based on this negative forum. When will you grow up and comment on what is worthwhile to read.
July 25, 2012 at 3:26 PM
Scout’s honour Anon, I don’t need this blog to turn my opinion about this council negative. The gang and Newton an Burke do it all themselves
July 25, 2012 at 3:02 PM
Minutes are altogether a laugh in Glen Eira. If there is a “protocol” as several councillors state, then this should be made available so all can read and understand what is meant to happen and what minutes are supposed to consist of. This item discloses the collusion that is clearly going on and the complicity of those councillors who voted against the Penhalluriack amendment.
I agree with Penhalluriack when he says that the individual who writes the minutes writes history. This still does not excuse those councillors for accepting this skewed view of history. Nor does it excuse them from the need for consistency and the application of principles to all sets of minutes.
It strikes me as very strange indeed when I read that the community consultation committee meeting went for just over two and a half hours. The minutes go for a page and a half and basically are a repetition of an officers report that we already know all about. How such a document can then be called “minutes” is insulting in the extreme. It is again an exercise in spin that reveals nothing of what really went on and the arguments discussed. The Local Government Act requires that minutes contain motions and resolutions. We are told nothing about who suggested what, and on what basis any decisions were made – much less the actual resolutions.
My suggestion is that an independent minute taker should be available for all meetings – that is until this council and its councillors decide that they had better adhere to the law rather than allowing the distortion and frequent rewriting of history as happens on a regular basis. The proposition that officers are “independent” and capable of note-taking and the writing of accurate and truthful minutes has taken a complete battering. Only fools or accomplices would still adhere to such a proposition.
July 25, 2012 at 4:58 PM
I don’t get why there should be any haggling over minutes at any time. Councillors are supposed to be accountable for their opinions. If they say something or present any ideas or arguments then they should be ready to stand by those views. If they’re outvoted then so be it. That’s politics after all. But at least the community will have some idea of what’s going on and how well their elected representatives are performing. That’s what they should be judged on after all. If councillors are too scared to admit to what they might have said and minutes have to be changed all the time to cover up what went on then they don’t deserve to be there.
July 25, 2012 at 8:04 PM
Pilling ought to be hung drawn and quartered … never have I heard such a ridiculous and spurious argument to justify denying someone natural justice or the residents information. And from someone with political aspriations beyond Council – obviously he doesn’t realise that as a state or federal polly he will face an opposition (who will question him, but unlike this blog which questions him, he will be unable to ignore) and will be subject to media scrutiny (unlike the non-scrutiny of the local papers).
Someone should inform Pilling (who flips and flops worse that any American politician) that the residents are demanding more information rather than less -mind you why someone should have to inform Pilling rather than have him work it out himself is beyond me, but such is obviously the case.
July 25, 2012 at 8:22 PM
While on the subject of lack of information available to residents, does any one know why Council clammed up over the GESAC delays and just allowed silence and uncertainty to reign.
I’d also be interested on an update on the liquified damages claim. Another item that is now the subject of silence – not a good look!!!!.
July 26, 2012 at 12:34 AM
GESAC and the MRC agreement. Both lack information and both committees chaired by the same idiot.
July 26, 2012 at 11:19 AM
Penhalluriack is again trying to rewrite history to absolve himself of his failings.
When will the citizens of Glen Eira be free of his costly and wasteful actions. We need Councillors who act for the ratepayers not for the own self interest.
July 26, 2012 at 4:56 PM
Tell you what – lets what until the VCAT hearing in August before you make any more claims.
Council has spent $300K of ratepayers money to make spurious allegations which have largely been dropped. Now suppose the few that remain are chucked out by VCAT – do you think Tang, Esakoff and Hyams (Mayors during the relevant time frame) and Newton (the main protagonist) will each kick in to repay the ratepayers the $300K already paid, and the $100K yet to come, because they made the crappy decision to pursue regardless of the cost.
July 28, 2012 at 10:04 AM
Clearly Crs Hyams, Lipshutz, Esakoff, Pilling, Lobo have either not read their own Code of Conduct, or have rejected it en mass. Here’s what the Code has to say:
Teamwork 4.8.2: “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.”
There has been a very clear breach of the Code of Conduct, and the above councillors who voted for the breach should at least explain to the public why they don’t believe they should be referred to a Councillor Conduct Panel.