Last post we identified what we consider to be some of the most important issues that have come up for decision in the past year or so, as well as the associated voting patterns. This post, we wish to remind readers of some of the statements that these councillors made in justifying their votes. Readers can judge the logic and the outcomes of such statements for themselves.
THE C60/Centre of the Racecourse
PILLING – ‘our negotiating team have done a commendable job…there will need to be ongoing negotiation between both parties to ensure that all aspects of this agreement are fulfilled and delivered’ and this will mean ‘continued good will on both sides’
HYAMS – “I think if we say no to this it is actually a loss to the community….we can look at this in a year’s time and either we’ll have a park….or we won’t and it will be our fault for saying ‘no’. It’s that simple’…..negotiators did the best job they could have done..…..compromise……”
ESAKOFF: The agreement will be ‘valuable’ and ‘meaningful’ to the community in terms of open space’….compared the decision making involved in this to the decision making that contestants make in game shows. ‘some take huge gambles and say ‘I came with nothing and I’m prepared to go home with nothing…in this case though it’s the community we’re playing for….we need to ask ourselves, what would the community do, what would they want. I believe they would want this win’….I don’t believe our residents would thank us if we were to say this is not enough….the risk is too great….to come home with nothing is irresponsible….I believe that this is a good outcome’
LIPSHUTZ – Restated that there has been a major change from the past in that previously it was an ‘adversarial position’, now it’s a ‘conciliatory position’ ‘we’re working together and that is something that I think is very important’.
NOTICE OF MOTION
TANG: ‘I’m particularly concerned that Notices of Motion would give rise to the opportunity to make decisions without at least having advice…..better that councillors make decisions with some advice rather than none at all’.
LIPSHUTZ – ‘That there are a majority of councillors in the state that have this Notice of Motion…..doesn’t mean that it is right, doesn’t mean that it is right for us…my view is ‘if it’s not broken don’t fix it’…. I’m concerned about the mischief (of notice of motion) …we make decisions in an ill informed way….we discover afterwards that this is entirely the wrong way…..if a councillor wants to know something we ask for a report….we can put a timeline on that….Other concern is that councillors can grandstand and can frustrate the working of a council….(agreed with Magee that no-one at) this council would do that….we act responsibly, but this is a local law that will not just be for this council but for generations….we can make the law and you look at it in a broad based way not in a specific way….(if a councillor grandstands, there are speeches, fillibuster) and frustrate the workings of council and that’s not what you want to see….I don’t think this adds anything….In my view it’s important that we maintain a collegiate atmosphere….ensure ….(since being on council since 2005) can’t remember one instance (where he couldn’t get something onto the agenda)……if it’s not broken don’t fix it….the dangers of putting a notice of motion as against not having it are….far too great.
HYAMS – I’m sick of (hearing) that councillors should be able to get things on the agenda….if there was no other way….but as has been said there are many other ways….. and other ways that I think are more responsible and will lead to us making more informed decisions…. ‘as Lipshutz said when we do these things we don’t just do it for this council …..we do it for future councils…. we can’t say (what sort of people are going to be on those future councils)…..and as long as there are adequate ways (to get things on the agenda)…..I don’t see the need to take the risk by changing anything…. (COMMENT – READERS SHOULD REMEMBER HERE HYAMS SUBMISSION ON A COUNCIL PLAN WHERE HE ARGUED STRENUOUSLY AGAINST BINDING NEW COUNCILS TO POLICIES ENACTED UNDER PREVIOUS COUNCILS!)
ESAKOFF ; if I thought this was going to be an improvement I’d be happy to approve it but ….our decision making is democratic….healthy debate is healthy…the difference between us is what makes a good council….the community too have a part in this….if there is a report in the agenda that they’re able to read….they can contact us, and they do….Notice of motion doesn’t offer that opportunity for there’s no report there for them to offer feedback to us….Informed decisions are always the best decisions…..I don’t think we’re lacking anything….we have opportunities available to us to get things on the agenda….
Glen Eira Debates 
August 28, 2012 at 5:08 PM
I think Hyams words will come back and haunt him at the October election. 18 months on and whilst he approved C60 there is no trace of a park, or anything resembling a park. Nothing. What a pathetic leader we have as mayor.
August 28, 2012 at 5:22 PM
Wouldn’t it be nice if the four Councillors who voted in C60 because of the centre of the racecourse agreement provide an update at the next Council meeting. Nice but it ain’t going to happen. Not in Glen Eira.
August 28, 2012 at 5:31 PM
It may sound strange to contributors on this website but I am disappointed that the gang hasn’t been held accountable by the other five members of Council. Penhalluriack and Forge were both elected on the basis of opening up the racecourse but neither have mentioned a word about it in the Council meetings.
August 28, 2012 at 6:57 PM
Frank has been muzzled by the gang and Newton. He also wasn’t on the racecourse committee. He doesnt need to justify anything. Let Hyams, Lipshutz, Esakoff and Pilling do the explaining. However as I said in a previous post, they won’t say anything as it is embarrassing to Council and Newton won’t let them.
August 28, 2012 at 7:09 PM
This is what we reported on at the April 2011 council meeting where the quotes come from. Below is what Penhalluriack stated –
PENHALLURIACK: Began by reiterating the history of the racecourse and stating that the public has been ‘excluded’ from the grant by Queen Victoria. ‘Tonight I stand ashamed to be a councillor of Glen Eira because the negotiators’…..’did a terrible job’. ‘almost everything they achieved was achieved by a letter from the MRC to Council in september last year….that was held secretive from council, all councillors I presume until it was published in the agenda for the Special Council Meeting on the 13th December last year’….’What has been achieved in my opinion is pathetic.‘ ‘Nobody will go into a public park with a big fence around it’ Most people are at work at 9.30 and instead of allowing people to enjoy a barbecue in summer they have to be out by sunset…’what’s wrong with having lighting in this particular park?’….’It will not work as a park’…’and the access is shared with horses. Sure the horses go, but they leave their shit behind and when you go into the park you can smell it’. Outlined his solutions for walking horses across the area…’It’s a deliberate move by the MRC to exclude the public because for the last 8 or ten years the public is suddenly gleaning an understanding that it’s their park’. It is not ‘the exclusive domain of the Melbourne Racing Club as they would like you to believe it is’….The MRC is a non profit organisation but ‘I’ve never known a more avaricious organisation in my life’. Spoke about the profits from pokies and compared Zagame’s payment of 8.3% in tax because it owns the land, compared to the MRC which can spend this ‘tax’ on watering the lawns in the racecourse and paying the labour. ‘We should have that money in council’. ‘You heard cr Tang earlier talking about this massive increase in rates that you’re going to be facing,…it should not be happening. That $3 million dollars…should be coming back to council’. ‘What we’ve got with this dreadful negotiation is a piece of nonsense….I can tell you that….in 24 months time the MRC will go to the government and say ‘Look we’ve wasted a million dollars on this park and nobody uses it’…..Cr. Lipshutz….has ‘caved in’ …or whoever was dealing with the MRC and it may well have been our CEO becuase the CEO and the planning department had a number of meetings with the MRC ….which we’re not informed about as councillors and we should be informed about it’. reiterated that this deal came from the MRC last September and ‘we didn’t know about it….we are heading for a disaster, we have missed a golden opportunity….If the motion is lost I’m going to move that there be further’ negotiations with the MRC’. doesn’t believe that it should be ‘discussed here’. ‘The deal we’ve got is a waste of the paper it’s written on’. ‘Five years to pull down the fence on Queen’s Avenue. I can do it in 5 minutes’!
FORGE: attempted to raise a point about ‘Winky Pop’ and the legal advice she had received that morning.
ESAKOFF questioned relevance. Forge responded with importance of the issue and it shouldn’t be decided tonight. Esakoff responded ‘this item is going to be decided tonight’.
August 28, 2012 at 7:59 PM
Esakoff can’t speak for herself. It would have been Newton whispering to her to move on. Penhalluriacks final comment sent Newton off to put those stupid barriers in Queens Avenue. Done to piss off Penhalluriack and ‘save’ on maintenance.
August 28, 2012 at 6:17 PM
If it ain’t broke don’t fix it is the pathetic argument of most of these toadies. It’s nothing more than an excuse to do nothing and to keep Newton happy. They are a disgrace.
August 28, 2012 at 8:17 PM
It’s quite laughable for Esakoff to claim that residents are better off with officers’ reports that they may then comment upon. Council meetings don’t permit addresses by residents unless granted permission by the Mayor. In recent times this hasn’t happened. Then there’s the problem that agenda items are published late on a Friday giving people very little time to do anything and courtesy would I think stop many folks from interfering with councillors’ weekends. So that leaves only Monday when it’s all too late and people are at work.
Just for once it would be wonderful for these councillors to cut the crap and actually state the truth. They would certainly receive much more respect from me if this occurred. It’s a forlorn hope though when the entire agenda of the gang and Newton’s policies are to separate councillors from residents and councillors from administrators except for the favoured few. The baloney that is used to camouflage this fact is now wearing very, very thin and will be exposed come election time.
August 28, 2012 at 10:43 PM
GERA has put up a terrific post on the Alma Club sale (auction tomorrow). The post rightly questions how this council could let such a bargain go down the drain when all its rhetoric is focused on lack of open space.
Upon checking, we also found that the issue only rated one mention in a Records of Assembly (January 31st 2012). When the public question was asked in February it was taken on notice and the response was only published on the last page of the minutes in March 2012 – just conveniently coinciding with the publication of the January 31st Records of Assembly.
We concur wholeheartedly with the GERA post and draw readers’ attention to the above – surely not coincidence? Surely this deserved to be discussed in the open in a public council meeting? More importantly, given the response to the letter of appeal from the Club in February, who made the decision not to go ahead? Was this once again a decision made behind closed doors in an Assembly? Or did councillors again turn a blind eye and hand everything over to administrators and simply shut up?
See: http://geresidents.wordpress.com
August 28, 2012 at 11:37 PM
In the case of the Alma Sports Club, I vote for Councillors taking the path of least resistance (aside from Penhalluriack and we see where that has gotten him and the expected $500k of ratepayers money down the dunny) and just letting it go because they have their own agendas. It’s an election year so Lobo’s price was being finally allowed to speak in a Council Meeting, Magee got to campaign for more carparking space at GESAC but moving the skate park (it’ll provide an additional 16/17 carparks and is still considered as being open space), Pilling sold out to something but it’s always hard to determine what flip flop man actually gets (and when revealed, the sell out is usually way out of proportion to his real or imagined personal gain) and Forge who is very inconsistent with her voting has been ill so in this case may just be deserving of some sympathy (but not for long)
So the gang (Hyams, Lipshutz, Tang and Esakoff, aided by the Admin) just declared it confidential and hoped it would only be known to residents when it was too late. Exactly what happened … and now they can spin it however they like and besides residents will forget.
A bargain and an extremely worthwhile community asset gone through lack of action – shame shame shame both on Council and ratepayers for putting up with this pathetic bunch.
August 29, 2012 at 12:56 AM
Don’t forget speaking of the more “important councillors” the specially selected four that a majority of this figure only needed to be three so arrangements made at pre-council meeting drill could have definitely had dissenters who were ceorced into appearing at those public meetings and
voting in a block. Probably the voting only appeared to be unanumous perhaps it wasn’t behind the closed doors of the many preliminary meetings.
And say if Cr Pilling or any other brave one were a dissenter, within the secret chambers, then the number of councillors “carrying our multi billion decisions may have been only three!
From all accounts most councillors who hold alternative views have been silenced for years and currently as we all hear in a very unpleasant manner, so where has our democracry gone?.
August 29, 2012 at 8:28 AM
I put this in another post but people like John C might not have seen it:
I heard a rumour that Aquinta Racing was moving to Ballarat by the end of the year thus the Glen Huntly park extension could happen. apparently it will make training less viable at caulfield with Moodies being a lot smaller. please keep up pressure to make sure another trainer doesnt move in.
Looking at the white fences in the middle it makes the area available to the public look very small. However if training moves and all the tracks are removed then it will be 2 or 3 times bigger. I know people are saying it will never happen but it is probably the MRC’s intention to make the car park bigger so it will suit them. I would be happy only having to walk under one set of fences instead of 10 to get to the middle
August 30, 2012 at 12:19 AM
To the MRD Fan Club I do know one trainer has moved out and that there is already an Aquinta at Ballarat. Have you ever searchefd Mike simmons on MRC, Caulfield Racecourse Trustees and Aquinta Lodge… It is all very interesting. You only nee to listen to the racing program in the morenings and the trainers love it here because I’m sure they are all on such a good deal. Maybe we should all camp there at cup time and see what happens.
Catch upp on the MRC’s hundred years of occupation.