Backroom wheeling and dealing, plus the continued inability to present honest and forthright officers’ reports continues with the appointment of councillors to the various committees. There is much in this report that requires commenting upon. We will go through this sequentially
- Again no author noted. It’s rule by nobody in Glen Eira.
- Spurious claims as to the rationale behind the creation of the Racecourse Special Committee. For example, we’re told that the committee “was established because there was a risk that a Council Meeting dealing with an item concerning the Racecourse might fail for lack of a quorum”. In order for this possibility to eventuate a series of truly extraordinary events have to take place: all trustees must declare a conflict of interest; a councillor must decide to Winky Pop him/herself and someone must be absent. Even if someone is ill, there is no plausible reason as to why any meeting could not be deferred for a week, or possibly even 2! When the MRC is quite capable of delaying ‘developments’ at the racecourse we see no reason why council cannot defer a meeting for a few days until a councillor is able to attend and ensure a quorum. The C60 decision was in fact delayed for several months following the recognition that the farce of ‘consultation’ had to be endured as a good public relations exercise.
Even then, Lobo did not declare a conflict of interest, he was not a trustee, and his presence would have ensured a quorum. The real reason for the creation of the Racecourse Special Committee is clear to everyone – insurance that the C60 and the ‘agreement’ with the MRC was passed.
The real sting in the tail however, comes with this incredible paragraph: “That Council now has a different composition and it may be possible to abolish this Special committee and deal with Racecourse matters in Ordinary Council Meetings. That will be determined after Trustees have been appointed”. Why the existence or otherwise of this Committee should be ‘determined after Trustees have been appointed” is the real question. It couldn’t possibly be that if Newton doesn’t get his little select band chosen as trustees, then he’s better off going to a full council meeting where their votes will count? If, on the other hand, the gang are selected as trustees, then residents can bet their houses that the Committee will continue! It will be business as usual if this scenario eventuates.
3. Next we have the Roads Special Committee. Suddenly this becomes ‘unwieldy’ if dealt in an ordinary council meeting! Strange that the same argument is not used for the Racecourse Special Committee. We also need to highlight that as a Special Committee, created under Section 86 of the Local Government Act, such committees are obliged to present both agendas and minutes of its meetings. To the best of our knowledge, no agenda or minutes have been presented from this committee for at least 3 years! So much for proper governance and adhering to the Local Government Act! Even better is that the CEO appointments Special Committee is yet to publish its minutes also dating back several months!
We further draw readers’ attention to the fact that in the Annual Report the Delegated Planning Committee is referred to as a ‘Special Committee’ (Page 81). It is NOT A SPECIAL COMMITTEE established under the Act. It is the creation of delegatory authority with no published agendas, minutes, or obligatory schedules. To term it a ‘Special Committee’ is deliberately misleading and mischievous.
4. This sentence on advisory committees is also worthy of comment – “It is important, however, to ensure that decisions and priorities are set by those who have been elected ie Councillors.” What a nice way of saying that residents will not get a look in!
5. There’s also the blanket statement that the CEO Contractual Arrangement Special Committee, the Animal Management advisory committee and the Racecourse advisory committee will all be abolished and that these functions will be ‘handled by Council’. Of course, since Penhalluriack is no longer there, the Contractual Committee doesn’t have to exclude anyone (at this point in time) and the Racecourse advisory committee which also included Penhalluriack can also disappear. Animal management of course hasn’t had a meeting for over a year and since it takes its order from the Rec department, it is also superfluous. Interestingly, the argument used for the Roads Committee (ie that matters are too ‘wieldy’ for ordinary council meetings) doesn’t appear to hold much water in these instances. The inconsistencies and spin are quite unbelievable.
Finally, we wish to point out a couple of other salient facts.
- With the abolition of all these advisory committees, this council has the least number of advisory committees of any neighbouring council as far as we can tell.
- Glen Eira has the least number of committees that include community reps in the metropolitan area
- And what of the Pools Steering Committee? Not a word! Since GESAC is doing so brilliantly, it no longer needs ‘supervision’ we assume, even though it is costing ratepayers a fortune. All can now be left in the capable hands of the Audit Committee and administrators!
Glen Eira Debates 
November 25, 2012 at 9:59 AM
Winky Pop could be the greatest present ever handed to developers and any administrator wishing to stifle discussion. Merely the mention of the phrase could be enough to instil fear into the hearts of numerous councillors. What never is mentioned is that Winky Pop is not a law – it’s only a judgement by one man about a specific set of circumstances. Basically it’s an opinion and like all opinions highly debatable. It was used effectively to sideline Penhalluriack and then Forge before she became a trustee and is again being wheeled out just in case.
November 25, 2012 at 12:54 PM
The “justification” given for forming the Caulfield Racecourse Precinct Special Committee is extraordinary. While it was and still is the view of the CEO that Trustees have a conflict of interest, LGA 78B makes it just as clear that they don’t. Sadly, some Councillors have in the past been intimidated into declaring a non-existent conflict of interest over being Council-nominated Trustees. BTW 78B(ba) was introduced in 2010. Even the mention of Winky Pop in the anonymous officer’s report continues the pattern of misrepresenting its applicability. Cr Esakoff, CEO Newton, and DCD Akehurst have all provided evidence to State Government committees concerning the centre of the racecourse and the lack of public access that the MRC have provided. I’ve not seen them declare any conflict of interest regarding matters involving the MRC.
The CEO committee was a blatant and ultimately successful attempt to exclude Frank Penhalluriack from participating in the review of the performance of the CEO and decisions concerning reappointment. All the public ended up getting from the Council spokesperson, then-Mayor Esakoff, was something bland and information-free. Nobody knows if he was the best candidate available as the position wasn’t advertised. To this day the public doesn’t know what the performance criteria for the CEO are, or even whether a code of conduct for council staff exists.
One of the troubles with the operation of delegations at the moment is that there is no mechanism in place to ensure Council fulfils its obligations under LGA for decisions made under delegation. Reasons for decision are not given, or officers refuse to put them in writing, or (MODERATORS: phrase deleted), or ignore requests for evidence to substantiate spurious claims, or write reports that ignore relevant Council policy when attempting to persuade Council to make a particular decision. It’s unethical, but probably not illegal.
November 25, 2012 at 4:01 PM
Lipshutz should never be appointed to the audit committee again. This would make it 8 years straight and that’s not good for anyone. Every guidelines says that these committees should be rotated. It’s bad enough that McLean and Gibbs have been on since last century and their appointments done in secret.
November 25, 2012 at 11:13 PM
Just what a family law practitioner brings to an audit committee has always mystified me.
November 25, 2012 at 11:10 PM
Residents might recall that in FEBRUARY 2012, council passed the following resolution regarding a reduction in impervious surfaces for developments. The original pathetically weak Akehurst recommendation was that council only seeks an amendment which covers the minimal change areas, but the resolution demanded that housing diversity also be included. The resolution read in part – “Prepare a Planning Scheme Amendment to lower the percentage of impervious surfaces within the Minimal Change Area and Housing Diversity Areas”.
It is now 9 months later and not a sign of this amendment seeking permission to exhibit. The lame old excuse will undoubtedly be that they’ve been waiting for the Minister’s Planning Zone reforms to be clearly enunciated. Hogwash we say. No planning department worth it’s salt should take 10 months to draw up a draft. No planning department can so regularly ignore Council resolutions. Worse however is that not one single councillor has asked where this draft amendment is? It’s not recorded in councillor briefings, nor other advisory committee meetings. The issue has been allowed to lapse it appears not on the decision of our elected representatives but on the whims of unelected bureaucrats. When other amendments which favour developers keep popping up like rabbits out of a hat with regular monotony, then we have to start wondering whose interests are really being served by Glen Eira Council?
November 25, 2012 at 11:15 PM
Is community consultation really taken seriously? There is a committee putatively for the purpose, even somehow and despite the odds, with community representatives. Yet Council’s own website at http://haveyoursaygleneira.com.au/have-your-say-glen-eira hasn’t been updated since May 2012. Nothing. No consultation. Move along, nothing to see here. Several councillors have publicly and privately indicated they don’t like this blog or the people who comment on it, me included (in my case, the wrong school & university). I hope we don’t ever reach a stage where the only comments accepted are from sycophants.
November 26, 2012 at 6:03 AM
Social media is being used by savvy organisations to create discussion on what they are doing well and not so well. Unfortunately Glen Eira takes the opposite position of trying to stamp out debate. The MRC also has not updated their Caulfield Village site since C60 was passed despite the Racecourse agreement being signed by Pilling, Hyams, Lipshutz and Esakoff. In reality these four have attempted to stop discussion in Glen Eira for the last four years and now for the next four….. Sigh……
November 26, 2012 at 7:56 PM
This council can’t even get their stories straight. Been looking at the agenda items and the report that Okotel asked for about information for applicants and objectors. They’ve included the fact sheet on the dpc where I found this great sentence “As such , it is not a statutory meeting, it is a meeting Council
chooses to have in the interest of enabling parties to verbally express their view to the decision-makers” This doesn’t tally with what the blog quotes from the annual report. If it’s not a staturary meeting then it can’t be a special committee. Don’t expect to get the truth or accuracy from anything this council puts out.