Council has published Candidates’ Summary of Returns’.
The majority entered ‘no gift disclosed’. Those candidates who listed donations are:
Thomas Sounness – $3,654.30 – Australian Greens
Neil Pilling – $3,654.30 – Australian Greens
Rose Read – $3,654.30 – Australian Greens
Brett Hedger – $3,654.30 – Australian Greens
Karina Okotel – $500 – Donald Towns Pty Ltd & $1,000 (Frank Greenstein)
Kelvin Ho – $500 – Yabo Global Pty Ltd
Oscar Lobo – $5000 – CK Foods and $5000 (Dr Suresh Chandra)
John Barry Myers – $1,250 – Henry Buch
ALL OTHER CANDIDATES HAVE DECLARED NO GIFTS. IT SHOULD ALSO BE NOTED THAT THE FOLLOWING HAVE NOT SUBMITTED THEIR RETURNS –
Joshua Spiegel
Wilmars Mikelsons
Michael Caspi
Rodney Andonopoulos
Glen Eira Debates 
December 7, 2012 at 12:28 PM
Okotel’s Liberal mates have come out of the woodwork. A liquor store and Greenstein. Crikey in 2009 had this to say about Mr Boor Greenstein “In Caulfield, “local power-broker” Frank Greenstein proposes that Shardey make way for David Southwick, who previously contested the federal seat of Melbourne Ports in 2004 and was narrowly pipped by short-lived Labor member Evan Thornley for an upper house seat in Southern Metropolitan in 2006. Ted Baillieu is apparently very keen that none of this transpire, as both McIntosh and Shardey are loyal to him”
December 7, 2012 at 1:51 PM
How about Mary Delahunty. She had one of the biggest campaigns and left the impression that the ALP had supported her to some extent. I trust she will be investigated especially looking for receipts from Aust. Post for the direct mail. After watching what happens in the NSW ALP nothing would surprise me.
December 7, 2012 at 12:43 PM
Guess we now know who paid for the Oscar fridge magnets.
December 7, 2012 at 1:44 PM
Guess CK Foods paying Oscar $5,000 is cheaper than the fine of $67,500 they had to pay last year because of rotten food, mould and dead flies found in the Bentleigh store. Are we also led to believe that Esakoff, Pilling, Lipshutz and Hyams did not receive any favours from the MRC? Whatever did happen to the Caulfield Racecourse Agreement? The silence is deafening.
December 7, 2012 at 5:45 PM
Surely you’re not suggesting there are any flies on the graduate? 😀
December 7, 2012 at 2:10 PM
One notable brochure that was distributed had Henry Buch on one side and Jim Magee on the other side. I hope Jim has the invoice for his half of the cost. How did those preferences go again.
December 7, 2012 at 2:13 PM
I’m not sure I feel very comfortable with candidates accepting donations from private businesses,particularly a business that has received very negative publicity and has been before the courts several times. Certainly they may have now got their act together and are providing a valuable outlet for residents, though I’m still thinking it remains a bit suss. Didn’t Lobo campaign on your friend in council?
I can’t for the life of me figure out why Buch would give Myers this money. Any suggestions?
December 7, 2012 at 2:16 PM
The ALP has always financially supported council candidates. Find it hard to believe that Delahunty got no gifts. That needs looking at.
December 7, 2012 at 2:39 PM
What about Lipshutz, Esakoff, Okotel and Hyams from the Libs? Fairs fair don’t you think?
December 7, 2012 at 3:47 PM
None of their literature said anything about the Liberal Party or any other party. None of them did a targeted mail out. No problems as long as everyone has receipts to show the Municipal Inspectors. Any false declaration would be perjury. If you think any of the people you mentioned have not declared any gifts then ring the inspector. His number is 96659567. I doubt they will want your name.
December 7, 2012 at 9:59 PM
Electioneering is becoming more and more like American presidential campaigns. You need money and time and wealthy friends to support you. Independents, especially those in full time jobs, are handicapped from the start. Looking at the results it’s clear that money and time did talk.
December 7, 2012 at 10:14 PM
It has never been any different.
December 7, 2012 at 10:40 PM
What needs to be done is a review of the submitted returns and those who didn’t submitted a return need to fined as per the law and made to submit a return. If the watchdog has no teeth (or fails to use the teeth) then whý are they there?
December 8, 2012 at 11:47 AM
You are right. Allof the candidates would have kept their receipts. Election costs are tax dceductible. As we all know one should have receipts to support the expenditure in case the ATO does a desk audit.
On the other hand if money has been spent and there are no receipts one would ask where did the money come from.
December 8, 2012 at 8:39 AM
From Saturday’s Age –
Cash may gag council vote
Date
December 8, 2012
87 reading now
Royce Millar, Jason Dowling and Melissa Fyfe
EXCLUSIVE
MELBOURNE City Council could be denied a say on key building projects, with a majority of councillors unable to vote because of developer donations that bankrolled their election campaigns.
Major city developers, including high-rise apartment pioneer Central Equity, donated to the campaigns of more than half the candidates now on the council.
As a result, so many of the councillors have conflicts of interest – and are therefore obliged to abstain from voting – that there will be insufficient numbers to make up a council quorum to deal with the donors’ planning applications.
Advertisement
Lord mayor Robert Doyle’s Team Doyle won five of 11 council seats with the help of more than $100,000 from the property industry, including Central Equity. Cr Doyle this week vowed that the five would not vote on projects before the council from donors to his campaign. ”They know the moment any development of theirs comes up, anybody on my whole team has to rule themselves out,” he said.
But other councillors, including planning committee chairman Ken Ong, also received donations from property interests, including some of the developers that contributed to the Doyle campaign.
As a consequence, those developers may have inadvertently compromised the majority of the council, denying them a say on the very proposals for which they seek support.
Cr Ong acknowledged that he and fellow councillors had ”clear conflicts” of interest as a result of developer donations. He confirmed the donations could leave the council without a quorum and therefore unable to pass judgment on some planning matters, or give advice to the state government on larger development projects.
Some councillors have expressed concern about the impact donations could have on the council’s ability to consider planning applications. ”There are going to be potential consequences. I don’t know what they will be but if a development comes before the committee and there is not a quorum then we won’t be able to vote on significant planning decisions,” said Greens councillor Cath Oke.
She said she would support a review of who could donate to council election campaigns.
Monash University governance expert (and former Labor MP), Ken Coghill, said the council quandary highlighted the problem of politicians at all levels being reliant on corporate money.
He said it was an embarrassing paradox that the council could not do the job it was elected to do because of its dependence on developer dollars.
”There has to be an absolute ban on corporate donations to political candidates and their parties, it is as simple and straightforward as that.”
A Town Hall spokesman said that in such cases where council decision-making is impeded by multiple conflicts of interest, the council may have to apply to the state government to seek a formal exemption from the conflict-of-interest provisions of the Local Government Act.
Another option would be for the council to consciously fail to make a decision, allowing the project applicant to make an appeal to the Victorian Administrative Appeals Tribunal.
Developers with whom a majority of councillors may face conflicts of interest include:
■ Eddie Kutner’s pioneering high-rise company Central Equity, one of the most prolific contributors to the inner Melbourne skyline. The company is rarely without a project in the planning pipeline.
■ Richard Gu, who is believed to have big plans for a key site in Chinatown. He donated $20,000 to Team Doyle, and another $11,500 to a team led by Docklands cruise operator Keith Rankin, who is believed to have run as a support for Cr Doyle. A consultant working for Mr Gu contributed $2000 to Cr Ong.
■ Clement Lee, a city developer known for projects on Yarra north bank and in Collins and Flinders Street. Through a string of companies, Mr Lee contributed about $37,000 to Team Doyle and $4000 to Cr Ong.
This week was the deadline for declarations of campaign contributions for the October elections. It appears the total for all Melbourne City candidates was about $800,000.
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/cash-may-gag-council-vote-20121207-2b1ce.html#ixzz2EP8uZ29H
December 8, 2012 at 11:52 AM
Im sorry- Im actually getting a bit tired of the slinging matches in this blog….
How about bloggers working together to look at developing a more strategic & tactical approach to get the council to act in the residents interests.
Eg,. Reducing the massive tarffic problems rat-runs in local streets (which is set to get even worse!).
A really effective Local Residents Action Groups set up according to key themes, using well tested tectics for instance similar to the very proactive Port Phillip Residents Action Group), The PP Council does not move wiithout consulting these Grouops….
I know it makes us all feel better to get out concerns off our chest on this blog (& Ive been one who has done just this too), but really yhis alone, is not having the desired impact on Council, the admin group in council or anybody else…
Thats my suggestion-any views/feedback welcomed!
December 9, 2012 at 12:17 PM
This ai all rubbish.What if you gave a candidate a wad of cash?
December 10, 2012 at 7:06 AM
Spot on.
December 10, 2012 at 8:02 AM
This blog is run by contributors who not only whinge but clean the dirty linen in public.! They are usually constipated and need a doze of castor oil and/or epsom salt.
Nothing wrong to be sceptical and/or be a crictic in moderation. The commentators of this blog are Arrogant, Ignorant Stirers, There are also those who are in the category of Twisters and some scavengers all of whom are constantly negative.
Seldom few comments are worthy of read. Perhaps, the moderator
could think of some rules.