MR CHAMPION: I withdraw that. (To witness) What happened was this. Councillor Lipshutz asked Councillor Penhalluriack to leave the meeting?—I don’t recall that, Mr Champion, and I just repeat that I am not aware that anybody actually has the authority to tell any councillor to actually leave a meeting.
I used the word tell the first time, I use asked this time, if something turns on it. Councillor Penhalluriack’s evidence will be, sir, that Councillor Lipshutz asked him to leave the meeting. Do you agree or disagree with that or can’t remember?—I don’t recall that.
Councillor Esakoff asked him to leave the meeting?—I don’t recall that either, sir.
And they did so in raised voices?—I don’t recall that either.
SENIOR MEMBER: Do you think you would have recalled it if they had asked Penhalluriack to leave in raised voices?—Yes, I do, sir.
MR CHAMPION: You say it didn’t happen?—I don’t recall that happening, I don’t recall raised voices, no.
Do you recall them asking him to leave?—No.
The reason that they asked him to leave was that they said that he had a conflict of interest as to Item 12.10. That was what happened, sir, that’s what I’m suggesting to you; yes or no?—I don’t recall that happening, sir.
And that he protested that he didn’t wish to leave the meeting, that’s what happened?—I don’t recall that happening either.
And he left under protest?—I certainly don’t recall any protest.
SENIOR MEMBER: Just let me explain to you. I understand your answer “I don’t recall,” but let’s assume for a moment that, as Mr Champion said, Councillor Penhalluriack gets up and swears that he was told, and the Tribunal is going to be left with a position where Councillor Penhalluriack says something was certain, and you’re using the word don’t recall. When I asked you last time about the raised voices you said if that happened I probably would have recalled it. Now when you say you’re not recalling this are you saying you just don’t remember what happened or are you saying, look, if it had have happened I probably would have recalled it? Because it’s pretty important from our point of view. Do you understand the difference?—Yeah, I do, sir. Look, I don’t recall. I don’t know whether you’ve ever had the experience of being in a pre meeting of councillors but – – –
I haven’t had the experience of even being in an ordinary meeting of council?—From time to time, sir, they can get interesting to say the least. Governments at the local level can get a bit exciting at times. But in this particular instance I don’t recall people asking another councillor to leave, I don’t recall raised voices. Usually when things get a bit hot under the collar and things start to spiral out of control I usually do remember those instances.
Would you call this spiralling out of control?—No.
Sorry, if there had have been Councillor Lipshutz and/or Councillor Esakoff asking Councillor Penhalluriack to leave in raised would you say that’s spiralling out of control?—I’d put that in that category, sir, yes.
MR CHAMPION: The effect, sir, was to the extent that Item 12.10, the bullying training motion at that point was discussed at the pre meeting, Councillor Penhalluriack did not participate in that discussion?—Well, the minute actually records him leaving the room at 7.25.
The discussion such as it was, was after he left?—As I recall it there was some chatter as Councillor Penhalluriack was circulating his letter. He then leaves at 7.25 and then as you can see from the record shortly after that all officers with the exception of the director of community services also left.
SENIOR MEMBER: When you say officers you don’t include councillors?—No, sir, no.
MR CHAMPION: The reason he left was so that Item 12.10 could be discussed in his absence?—Well, I – – –
MR ATTIWILL: I object to the question. The reason he left? Did he give a reason? I mean, it’s not up to him.
MR CHAMPION: He can’t read Councillor Penhalluriack’s mind.
SENIOR MEMBER: He may have stated a reason, I don’t know. You can certainly ask that.
MR CHAMPION: What Councillor Penhalluriack’s evidence will be, sir, is that he left under protest because he was asked to leave, and you don’t remember that?—That’s correct.
Do you recall whether he did state a reason as to why he was leaving?—No, I don’t recall any reason.
SENIOR MEMBER: Is that a convenient time?
MR CHAMPION: Yes, if the Tribunal pleases.
<(THE WITNESS WITHDREW)
August 22, 2012 at 1:05 AM
Funny thing anyway that highly paid ANDREW NEWTON ONLY SEEMS TO RUN HIS ARTICLE in the right pose every time the old rag comes out. his secretary is instructed to always protect him from the liklehood of an appointment with a ratepayer or anyone who may ruffle a feather or present an opposing view. Then if steps out into the public arena and actually goes to meetings where residents talk of their flooding through their front and back doors he was seen spending the night talking to one woman and not hearing residents’ concerns. HIS CONTACT WITH THE COMMUNITY IS NILL and once again he put up one or two of his men in the firing line (a British tactic used with allied troops in WW1 and WW2) and the VCAT members had to listen to drivel from thesse highly paid council fat cats who treated all questions with a consistent obliviscence.as to what really happened so once again there is no accountability much less responsibility for GE Ratepayers.
If the mental ability of these males is so poor it could not be that they could complete any task so why not make space for someone with a better mempory.
August 22, 2012 at 7:45 AM
So, in Burke’s words, closed door council meetings “can get interesting to say the least. Governments at the local level can get a bit exciting at times. … things get a bit hot under the collar and things start to spiral out of control”.
Now put Jones being described as a “dumb mute” in the context of a meeting as per Burke’s description and you really have to wonder about the integrity of both Councillors and the Admin in determining that this is bullying and worth spending at minimum of $300,000 on.
August 22, 2012 at 9:11 AM
Glen Eira I don’t follow what this is all about?
August 22, 2012 at 10:40 AM
The keeping of minutes has become a total farce in this council, especially when it is Burke who is the keeper of those minutes. Incredibly the argument goes along the lines of – “if it’s not in the minutes then it didn’t happen”.
August 22, 2012 at 11:56 AM
And this is all typical defence tactics when a Barrister has no case. Pick a meeting a year ago and go fishing for something which may or may not have occurred.Try to impune the character of the wittness over a matter of little relevance to the charges.Only the ignorant fall for this age old tactic but I can assure you the Member won’t. This is why Frank will not give evidence because he has no defence. He should simply appologise and agree to abide by an agreed set of rules.He has cost all of us a fortune because he is never wrong.
August 22, 2012 at 3:17 PM
That is the problem – all Councillors who question Newton are bullys. Penhalluriack questions why Queens Avenue is no longer maintained and Newton pulls the bully card. Meanwhile the weeds pile up along Queens Avenue just to rub it in Penhalluriack’s face. Keep going Frank, the vast majority of the community are with you on this one.
August 22, 2012 at 4:19 PM
It’s more than weeds. Vegetation has been allowed to spread onto the road and into the bike path. Something needs to be done but no one knows who is responsible. Is it VicRoads, Glen Eira Council or the Melbourne Eacing Club? I DON’T RECALL.
August 23, 2012 at 12:24 PM
No the vast community are not for criminal behaviour!@
August 22, 2012 at 6:08 PM
My take on reading these posts is that Penhalluriack will 100% take the stand. He’s got witness statements that have been mentioned and I’d think there’d be plenty of evidence to support his claims. It’s the officers and especially Newton who must be quaking in his boots about fronting up to a full and extensive cross examination. I support Penhalluriack fully here in his attempts to put a halt to the secrecy that has so divided and destroyed this council for ages now. It’s architect is Newton no doubt and his lieutenants plus the gang.
August 22, 2012 at 8:22 PM
Lawyer watcher, if you are such a leagle eagle then you will surely know how frequently this Council, in particular Hyams, Lipshutz, Tang and Esakoff breach local law. There’s two sets of standards in Council when it comes to applying or following the law … it’s known as one rule for us and another for them (them being anyone other than the aforementioned who does not agree with us)
So tell me, when Newton paid O’Niell (using ratepayers funds) to write a report full on ineuendos and lacking any substance is Frank the one to owe an apology.
August 22, 2012 at 12:22 PM
looking at the lovely white fences at the racecourse today. I reckon the fence off area would be 10% of the so called ‘peoples park’. I bet cars are allowed to park in the fenced area. I think if training was removed from Caulfield the park size would increase by 200%. However I realise the only way this is going to happen if there is some whizz bang facility set up in the sticks for them to move to or there is a Hendra virus outbreak at the racecourse. Imagine what this place would be like with a single track to cross to get to such a large park.
August 22, 2012 at 8:26 PM
Ever noticed the chain link fence around the house, in Normanby Ave, that is surrounded by the MRC Members Carpark. It’s there to protect the actual property line fence … members have a habit of crashing into it. I can only hope that whoever parks in the centre of the racecourse will treat the white pvc fencing (that is breeding faster than rabbits) the same way.
August 23, 2012 at 7:29 AM
your not insinuating that drunks would be driving home after the races and crash in to the fence. The racing industry isnt just gambling and drinking (especially teens) you know! Its a bonafide sport, industry, etc
August 22, 2012 at 2:39 PM
He always tries to leave all genuine questions andanswers in an unanswered with such skill it is unbelievable but oh, then he has an excuse if his memory won’t last long enough between his ear and hand or computer, however as he tries vainly to record temporary jottings. Maybe, we should instruct all the councillors who speak all the time uninterrupted to slow down for the poor minute taker with a bad memory.
August 22, 2012 at 8:18 PM
So: Minutes can’t be relied upon; officers don’t pay attention to what is happening at these meetings; the CEO has failed in his statutory responsibilities concerning the recording of conflicts of interests; an ex-Mayor has behaved as an agent provocateur, revealing private correspondence not to settle a dispute but to inflame it; personal opinions at an Assembly of Councillors get published; a subset of councillors are prepared to harass, bully, vilify and discriminate against colleagues including intimidating them; “conflict of interest” no longer takes on the meaning defined in Local Government Act; Council refuses to or can’t identify the particular Sections of the Act defining the alleged conflict of interest; Council refuses mediation; Council abuses its power to compel a member to undergo training in a manner designed to humilate without identifying the power, duty or responsibility it relies upon to do so; current and previous Mayors refuse to work to faciliate good relationships; a question takes on the status of a breach [CCC 5.5 4th bullet]; no councillor makes decisions concerning public funds impartially, responsibly and prudently; and there is only one proceeding at VCAT and/or Councillor Conduct Panel.
Worse still, Lawyer Watcher above asserts that the outcome of the proceeding shouldn’t be determined by the relevant Law, and that “evidence” shouldn’t be tested, and that allegations should be accepted without reference to the evidence.
This is a mess, it needs to be cleaned up, but it won’t happen with the current players retaining their positions. At least if matters are heard at VCAT, its mostly open to the public, and the failures of all participants are subject to public scrutiny. There will be some fascinating days ahead if ever Andrew and Margaret are cross-examined.
August 22, 2012 at 9:57 PM
A perfect summary of all the skull duggery that’s been going on. I take my hat off to you Reprobate for so succinctly calling a spade a spade. I too can’t wait to see Newton and Esakoff in the stand and I’d put Lipshutz, Hyams, Tang and Pilling up there too. Let them explain their collusion in an open court. That will be worth the price of entry and then some. Let’s find out exactly what’s been going on and how public trust has been abused and public money let go down the sewer.
On last thing that worth mentioning is that the second special committee on Newton hasn’t put up the minutes as yet. It was supposed to take place on the 31st of last month. Not that it’ll say anything but they probably want us to forget all about this. I’d bet that they’ve given him 100% pass mark on everything including wasting our money.
August 23, 2012 at 8:00 AM
Burke is relying on the Alan Bond defence. Some would reckon that they share many characteristics.
August 23, 2012 at 9:46 AM
I heard from a reliable source that Frank’s legal costs are covered by insurance. I suppose the ratepayers have to cover the Council’s legal costs.
August 23, 2012 at 12:21 PM
This is pure heresay , facts is that we the ratepayers are paying for this nonsense .. stop defending the undefendable !
August 23, 2012 at 7:33 PM
It is not hearsay. I think you are guessing. Maybe you or your mates are planning to contest the elections against Frank.
August 23, 2012 at 12:12 PM
PLEASE PLEASE Penhalluriack GO AWAY !!! this guy is trouble and costing us ratepayers inordinate amounts of money.
His ego is out of control , when will he do the right thing and step away for the good of the people of Glen Eira …
August 23, 2012 at 7:32 PM
Yes anon soon he will understand that apart from the publishers of this blog his supporters are few. He has upset many people in the community with his immature costly antics.Penhalluriack will be looked back upon on as the fool he is.
August 23, 2012 at 9:12 PM
You are undoubtedly correct. There are many fools in Glen Eira Council and they all seem to be part of the gang. For starters, how foolish to back Burke to the hilt over his appalling errors with the gesac basketball allocation. Only fools would support someone like him and risk the flack that is sure to come from the MBA at the election. Then there’s another fool move in supporting the loss of more open space to car parking for gesac when any good business plan and designer plans should have known from the start if parking was to be a problem. Never mind the additional million dollars that wasn’t budgeted for. Next is the sheer farce over the Ajax and Caulfield Bears little arrangement. Again these fools back a Burke error of gigantic proportions. Wonder if Ajax members will now give their votes to Hyams? Then there’s the Alma club. Another example of gross incompetence and no business sense. When the locals realise that they’re about to get high density in a minimal change area I once more doubt that their votes will go to any gang members. These examples show beyond the shadow of a doubt what fools we have in council.
August 23, 2012 at 8:41 PM
Idiot, Penhalluriack won Camden ward by a record margin last election. Since then his popularity has risen even more. He is a dead set cert and if you would like a bet, I will put a lazy grand on it. Meet you at your shop in the morning.