The words ‘dissent’ and ‘rescission’ are non-existent in Glen Eira’s Meeting Procedures – unlike other councils. Why? What is the result of the exclusion of such clauses and who profits by their exclusion?
We believe the answers are quite obvious. With no power to rescind a resolution everything must stand for time immemorial. The gang rams something through and that’s it – enshrined in law forever more. Then there’s the ability to question the chair’s ruling. With no authority to dissent, especially on points of order, then councillors are again gagged, knobbled, and rendered impotent – especially when the Mayors have been of the calibre that puts notions of fair play and good governance to shame.
Here’s part of our record of a May 2012 council meeting:
“HYAMS: said he wanted to ask Burke a ‘couple of questions’.
‘Is there anything in our Local Law at all that would have allowed me to do that?’ (ie put the dissent motion to a vote). Burke answered ‘No there’s not’. Next question was whether the Local Law permitted the Mayor to ‘decide all points of order?’. Burke stated that ‘the Local Law is quite clear….absolutely clear…’.
And there’s also this from April:
“HYAMS: ‘I have ruled that your question is improper’ and asked him to stop.
PENHALLURIACK dissented from the ruling and said that he moves a motion and that he would like Hyams to ‘call a vote of councillors’
HYAMS: ‘could you point to me in the Local Law where it says you can dissent’?
PENHALLURIACK: ‘I ask that you put it to a democratic vote’
HYAMS: said he would if he could find that section which would allow him to do this.
PENHALLURIACK: said that it should be council and councillors that make decisions and not the mayor that the mayor is simply ‘first among equals’
HYAMS then read out the section from the Local Law which says that the chairperson is the ultimate arbiter on points of order.”
Glen Eira Council and its lackeys operate on the principle of: if it’s not in the Local Law we can’t do it – unless of course, we want to. Then we simply change the rules! If is for this very reason that the notion of Dissent and Rescission be included in the Meeting Procedures. Mayors are not God’s gift to jurisprudence, especially recent Mayors of this municipality. One individual should not have the absolute right to stifle debate, squash opposition, and to undermine democratic process. If Council as a group votes to dissent from the Chair’s ruling, then that is democracy in action – not the opinion of one individual alone!
Below are some of the councils which have provision within their Local Law for councillors to dissent from the chair and to move the motion to dissent. They obviously believe in the right to disagree, the potential fallibility of the Chairperson and the imperative for democratic rule.
Bass Coast
Banyule
Baw Baw
Bayside
Benalla
Boroondara
Brimbank
Buloke
Campaspe
Cardinia
Colac
Corangamite
Darebin
East Gippsland
Frankston
Gannawarra
Golden Plains
Dandenong
Geelong
Greater Shepparton
Hepburn
Hindmarsh
Hobsons Bay
Horsham
Hume
Indigo
Kingston
Latrobe
Loddon
Macedon Ranges
Mansfield
Maribyrnong
Maroondah
Melton
Mitchell Shire
Moira Shire
Monash
Moonee Valley
Moreland
Mount Alexander
Moyne
Nillumbik
Northern Grampians
Pyrenees
Queenscliff
South Gippsland
Southern Grampians
Stonnington
Strathbogie
Surf Coast
Swan Hill
Towong
Wangaratta
Warrnambool
Wellington
West Wimmera
Whittlesea
Wodonga
Yarra Ranges
Glen Eira Debates 
January 18, 2013 at 11:32 AM
Hyams and Esakoff have been a disgrace as mayors. That alone is reason to include the dissent clause.
January 18, 2013 at 3:28 PM
“can you point me to the Local Law where it says you can dissent” is the dead giveaway. Poor old Penhalluriack should have taken it further. If it’s not in the law then that doesn’t mean that if the mayor has got the responsibility of making decisions that he couldn’t make a decision to put it to the vote. He’s chosen not to. I would have then brought up the next question as to why he’s chosen this particular course of action and what part of the local law he is relying on to justify his decision. That would really show what a circus this mob are and how they manipulate things with the help of his Royal Highness Burke. All pathetic and all working to keep a closed shop and stuff residents and good government as long as they get their way. Lobo should be held responsible for getting Hyams in again. It’s set this council back another century. Lobo isn’t the friend on council as his promo said. He’s the opposite.
January 18, 2013 at 5:59 PM
This blog has reported on many irregularities if not straight out abuses by the past two mayors in regards to meeting procedures. The extracts cited are examples of this single minded determination to stifle genuine discussion and that is not in keeping with any other council in the state. For this alone, the previous council in accepting the Local Law should be severely criticised. No amount of spin and argument can disguise the grotesque undermining of the Local Government Act and its intent to ensure open, transparent and accountable government. These qualities are the exact opposite of what the gang and Newton have reduced this council to. They should not only be held accountable, they should be condemned in the strongest terms. When the citizens of Glen Eira are not granted the same rights as every other citizen of every other council in the state, then we have a council that should be sacked – again.
January 18, 2013 at 6:55 PM
It is a weakness of Division 3 [Meeting Procedures] of our current Local Law that it is so open to abuse by the 2 roles that Local Law empowers. There is a rather pathetic requirement that the chairperson give reasons for their decision when ruling on Points of Order, but in practice even this doesn’t happen. Further, the reasons are not minuted, nor any clue that the incident occurred at all.
I disagree with Paul Burke when Paul claimed that there wasn’t anything in the Local Law that would allow the chairperson to put a motion of dissent to a vote. There is. Its the same mechanism that Council uses to resolve to extend a meeting as it approaches 10pm, or to consider a matter not in the Agenda as urgent business. Its up to the chairperson whether they allow a motion to be put, or effectively deny it in the course of a Meeting by requiring it to be put in writing. Its a fact that Council does allow motions to be put without having been submitted in writing. Otherwise Council couldn’t resolve to extend a meeting or consider something as urgent business.
As for an attitude of “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it”, that needs to be stomped upon. Its incompatible with a culture of continuous improvement and the pursuit of excellence.
January 18, 2013 at 7:21 PM
Reprobate, you don’t seem to get it. How can you have “continuous improvement and the pursuit of excellence” when you think that you are already top of the heap? – or at least spend $100k at least each year trying to bluff residents. When you’re perfect there’s no need to improve.
January 18, 2013 at 8:34 PM
And I thought the Peoples Democratic Republic of Glen Eira Post #1 was bad enough – hard to believe it gets worse and I hope there isn’t a #3 post coming up.
As per the bloggers on the no. 1 post – it really is time these Councillors started accepting their roles and legal responsibilities and acted in the residents interests. Passing rules that pass more and more powers to the Administration while diminishing the Councillors ability to act on behalf of the residents is not only unacceptable but is also contrary to the way local government is designed to function.;
January 18, 2013 at 9:53 PM
If Glen Eira had a NOM in the Local Law you can bet that Magee would have used it to get put the issue of planting trees in Murray St on the agenda. The cost is over a million so that all the people that own houses in the street can enjoy the increases in their property values. It was a blatent grab of greed by a few people that sold the idea to other landowners. They all bought their homes as they are and now want the City to pay for improvements. There is a down side to these laws. Most Councillors in other cities use them wisely. I am not sure that this would always be the case in Glen Eira. Over the years there have been individuals that lived by the credo of “whatever it takes”. The law would need to be carefully worded. That is the challenge.
January 19, 2013 at 7:49 AM
What an absolutely fallacious argument and one that sits weil with the philosophy of the Peoples Democratic Republic of Glen Eira. The idea that one of nine elected representatives of the people might use NOM to raise an issue at an ordinary Council Meeting (where it can be discussed and voted on openly) opens the door for “blatant grabs of greed by a few” or the “credo of whatever it takes” justifies excluding Notice of Motion is a complete travesty of democratic principles and processes.
It’s mind boggling to think that such an argument could be used to remove instruments of governance (that allow the elected representatives to actually represent the people) from the elected representives and give it to the unelected Administration. It’s probably why millions are being spent on concrete plinths in parks and nobody knows why.
January 19, 2013 at 10:01 PM
You didn’t read whay I said. I simply made the point that a law would need to be carefully worded. I also went on to say that some councillors could not be trusted to use the NOM for the good of our City and not just a few people waving around a petition. I think a NOM in the local law would be a good thing. It needs to be carefully worded to stop emotional greenies wasting the ratepayers cash on stupid schemes. Concrete plinths last hundreds of years. Good value.
January 20, 2013 at 7:35 AM
Seems to me if NOM works in every other Council in Victoria there is no reason why it can’t work in Glen Eira and that careful wording should not be required.
As for concrete plinths lasting hundreds of years and therefore being good value without explaining what purpose they serve – I’m sure the blogging public will make their own assessment of the quality of your argument
January 20, 2013 at 10:10 PM
You are amongst the few that complain about concrete plinths. In a democracy the majority rules. That is pretty simple. I am sure the engineers that had them installed have a good reasons but they have not bothered to tell you. Maybe if you quietly ring the appropriate department they will explain their methodology. Engineers usually are very methodical and they love concrete. These days it is called “hard edged” design. If they spread a bit of tan bark around and plant some native grass that would be considered “soft edge” design. Good Luck.
January 19, 2013 at 8:42 AM
Smart Aleck – What do you know about Hyams and Esakoff ? Did you work with them or are you related in any way? CAN YOU EXPLAIN YOUR TERM “DISGRACE” as Mayors? What gives you the right to use that terminology? Are you really a Smart Alec or grapes are sour Aleck? Did you know that Esakoff was a Mayor for 3 terms. Are you undermining the decision made by 5 out of 9 Councillors.
January 19, 2013 at 12:45 PM
Checked the dictionary. Definitions of disgrace are -the loss of respect, honor, or esteem; ignominy; shame. Reckon that answers your question. Ya can’t respect anyone whose taken an oath to work for residents and ends up ignoring the oath. Ya can’t trust them to administer the law and as far as esteem goes well that goes out the window every time they do Newtonspeak.
January 19, 2013 at 10:12 PM
Sounds like unless you work with someone or are related you are excluded from assessing their performance in public office …. bull sh*t!!!
Tell me how do you justify Cr. Esakoff being too busy to respond to calls re the passing of C60 (refer to any media reporting of the time) or her being unable to be contacted re the heritage issue (while Jack is – refer to The Age newspaper reports) and why after 2 terms she still has no comprehension of meeting procedures.
January 19, 2013 at 10:42 AM
Just because it gets on the Agenda doesn’t mean it get passed, but the discussion can be had and in public, not behind closed doors, were all types of deals and promises good and bad can be hatched.
Street trees are good for everyone across the whole city. I see lots of cases were residents plant there own street tree/s and council doesn’t pay a cent. That’s good isn’t it
January 19, 2013 at 5:34 PM
Well GG! If there was a planting plan rather than plonking them throughout the municipality in an ad hoc manner. Like close to busy corners so they very effectively – and dangerously – obscure vehicular traffic sight lines. And there was some thought to the type on tree rather than those dreadful Queensland Brush Box trees whose leaves take forever to break down. Not to mention the annoying gum nuts they drop incessantly and which despoil our streetscape, then maybe I’d agree.
Maybe we could secure the services of the person in charge of these matters at Stonnington who seems to know what he is doing.
January 19, 2013 at 10:02 PM
“Just because it gets on the Agenda doesn’t mean it get passed, but the discussion can be had and in public, not behind closed doors, were all types of deals and promises good and bad can be hatched” sounds like another good comment to anon 6’s spurious agrument above.