The year is rapidly drawing to a close, so we thought it would be fascinating to review what ‘progress’ has been made in the past 18 months on some of the major issues which have confronted this council. These include: C60 and the centre of the racecourse; GESAC basketball allocations, Notice of Motion. There are many others that will feature in future posts.
December 2011 Pilling (from his blog) – “In the aftermath of this year’s Gesac basketball saga feel it would be helpful to spend time in the New Year reviewing the whole EOI process and the criteria used in assessing.”
29th April, 2011- Media Release Headline – “Council places limits on C60”
Pilling on centre of racecourse – Through this agreement the ‘MRC can no longer deny the community’ its share of the racecourse. Will ‘be viewed in future years as a productive beginning…our negotiating team have done a commendable job…”
Hyams on centre of racecourse – “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’.”
Esakoff on centre of racecourse – 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’.
May 2011 – Council response to submissions on local law – ““A requirement that items are included either with the specific consent or mutual agreement of the Mayor or Chairperson imposes a fetter on the CEO to discharge his duty….Additionally councillors should not be responsible for the agenda as a consequence of the governance requirements to avoid improper influence.”
Southwick, Hansard, May 3rd 2011 – “This is a great story for Caulfield: it means that for the first time the Caulfield Racecourse will not only be a racecourse but it will be a park as well. It will provide an amenity not just for the people of Caulfield to be able to share and enjoy but for the people of Victoria as well. I am very proud to have been involved in discussions to ensure that this will happen. I thank the City of Glen Eira for its negotiations and its fine work, and I also thank the Melbourne Racing Club for coming together on this very important announcement”.
June 2011 – Dropping the Development contributions levy – officer report – ““It is considered that the benefit gained from a DCPO has been comparatively small compared to the cost of implementation and administration, and to annual capital expenditure for drainage.”
Friends of Caulfield Park submission – “We were greatly perturbed to see the introduction of ‘tidy’ concrete kerbing instead of the friendly informal grass edging formerly abutting Inkerman Road. We cannot understand why Council appears so reluctant to engage in discussion and consultation with park users(including the Friends of Caulfield Park) prior to undertaking what appears to be non-essential cosmetic surgery. It would be far more useful to spend the money maintaining the crushed rock paths which are used and enjoyed by hundreds of people on a daily basis”.
Lipshutz on Heritage expert advice on Seaview property – .‘I have to respectfully disagree with them. I have been there, I have seen the property…I don’t agree’
Lipshutz on Notice of Motion – “‘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…..the dangers of putting a notice of motion as against not having it are….far too great.”
Glen Eira Debates 
December 29, 2012 at 12:37 PM
All of these blasts from the past fall right into Turnbull’s comments from yesterday. It’s never been easier to tell lies and for the glib one liner. Public debate is dead and buried he thought. I couldn’t agree more judging by these quotes. They have no substance, no logic and no integrity.
December 29, 2012 at 1:12 PM
No spin in those quotes or lies. Simple statements by Councillors that are sincere about their work. Why would the Council consult with the Friends of Caulfield Park? A small group claiming to represent the park users. Do all the sporting clubs that use the park belong to this group?
Turnball lacks the qualities of leadership. Not his fault. He has many fine qualities leadership is not one of them. He knows that but keeps trying. He will make a good front bencher in an Abbott Government later this year.
December 29, 2012 at 3:27 PM
You’ve got to be joking! No spin? It’s all spin. Limits on c60. Yes, 20 plus storeys is for sure a “limit”. Love the bit about the “dangers” of a notice of motion. Yup, it’s a danger to the gang – that’s about it – because then 2 councillors could get something out into the open. The whole lot is spin and more spin and then throw in a couple of fibs and that sums them all up.
December 29, 2012 at 6:19 PM
The reasons given for not wanting the notice of motion thing are not spin. Spin is when something is iced up like a cake. All Lipshutz did was to put a counter argument. No spin in what he said. You are using spin by referring to a group of councillors as the gang. Tang is no longer available so maybe the so called gang won’t always have there way. Good luck.
December 29, 2012 at 6:59 PM
If you can’t tell the difference between a cogent argument supported by irrefutable facts and the contrary – spin – then I extend my sympathy. Lipshutz accused Penhalluriack plenty of times of “scare mongering”. The notice of motion quotes are all “scare mongering” instead of reason. High blown rhetoric that tries desperately to hide the real issues. We will surely get a repeat dose once the local law comes up for the mock review. The scripts have already been written. Pilling’s and Lobo’s votes will be interesting as far as consistency goes and so will Sounness and Delahunty’s votes.
December 31, 2012 at 5:46 PM
Penhalluriack was judged by the voters and they decided that he was not the right person to be on their Council. He was seen as a trouble maker. Lipshutz plenty of votes. Esakoff and Pilling did very well. Maybe it will be a better council without Frank.
December 29, 2012 at 10:41 PM
The press release “Council places limits on C60” was misleading, as Council didn’t place height limits on the precinct covered by C60. They can’t, as they don’t have the power to do so. The Special Committee, created to exclude certain councillors from the decision, essentially decided to remove 3rd party appeal rights from people affected by C60 provided the development fitted within a building envelope that included room for a 20-storey tower at the eastern end. MRC can however apply for a planning permit for something taller. If it doesn’t fit within the approved envelope then 3rd party appeal rights would be restored. It will be interesting to see what happens if the State Government scraps Priority Development Zones as per their announced intention.
December 29, 2012 at 2:22 PM
The person who I find the greatest disappointment on Council is Pilling. Esakoff, Hyams and Lipshutz got there based on race and favours by Newton but Pilling promised change. The centre of the racecourse agreement should have been a wonderful asset to all Glen Eira. Buy instead nothing has happened almost a year after it was promised to be completed.. What we ended up with Pilling though is a Whitlam, big on rhetoric but low on substance.
December 29, 2012 at 4:45 PM
The most objectionable comment from these selections is the one presumably written by Newton/Burke and probably signed by Hyams -“Additionally councillors should not be responsible for the agenda as a consequence of the governance requirements to avoid improper influence.”
It’s a clever use of language that perverts the very meaning of “governance”. The not so subtle threat of “improper influence” is another neat little perversion of the truth. If there was any truth in any of this then 99% of other councils would not include a notice of motion in their meeting procedures. Their interpretation is clearly different and that’s because they do not have Newton, Burke, and their gaggle of yes-men councillors sitting in chamber.
December 29, 2012 at 6:17 PM
Absolutely agree. At least it sheds light on and goes a long way to explaining the difficulties Glen Eira has with acting democratically. For the record, “improper influence” appears in only one place in LGA, in S76E. This section constrains individual councillors about directing council staff in the exercise of powers, or performance of duties and functions. It *explicitly* doesn’t apply to “a decision of the Council or a special committee that is made within the powers, duties or functions conferred under this or any other Act”. The whole point of getting a matter onto the Agenda is so that Council can consider it and make decisions.
Andrew did however write a report explaining why he was against the notion, which was that he didn’t want councillors making decisions without first getting advice from council staff. Missing was an explanation why a 2-person kommissariat was the appropriate vehicle for controlling the Agenda. Council could if it wishes improve the governance arrangements surrounding the Agenda by transparently publishing the requests for items and associated justification along with the kommissariat’s reasons for not including an item where the request has been rejected.
December 29, 2012 at 10:09 PM
Southwick has now stated that the Caulfield Racecourse Park will be opened in April 2013. Lets hope he is right this time. How disappointing that not a word on this has been made by the Glen Eira Councillors who signed the agreement, namely Councillors Lipshutz, Hyams, Pilling and Esakoff. Probably not even aware of the opening. Pretty pathetic when these Councillors could not even be bothered following up on something they spoke so highly of 2 years earlier.
January 1, 2013 at 11:06 PM
Plenty has happened at our Caulfield Crown Grant land. Thje favoured “tenants” who get is for nothing or on the cheap have put aout fifteen kilometres of fences in there for us. When at the races the other day it definitely looked like nothing bvetter than a series of sytock yarads or pig pens. What good is all that for the community?????
January 2, 2013 at 5:19 PM
I commend D Evans for the good example to commenters, in putting a name to his/her comments and hope in the New Year others will also be confident enough to do the same. The act of putting your name to your comments will make “Glen Eira Debates” a serious force for change in the Glen Eira community which it isnt currently
Roslyn Gold