We continue our ‘expose’ of the shortcomings of the Glen Eira Council Meeting Procedures by comparing them with what happens in other councils and asking readers to again consider the consequences of what this means for democratic rule.
The Chairperson/Mayor
Banyule: The Chairperson must vacate the chair to move a motion and a temporary Chairperson shall be appointed for the conduct of that item
Bayside: The chair is unable to move or second a motion, and may only if necessary debate a motion when all Councillors who wish to speak to it have done so, and just before closure of debate by the mover of the motion.
BUT IN GLEN EIRA: In 2012 Hyams moved 4 motions, seconded 3 and moved an amendment! The motions all involved vital issues – ie community plan, budget, and of course, anti-Penhalluriack!
Councillor Access to Information/Documentation/Recordings
Stonnington: A Councillor may, at a Council Meeting, require the production of any documents kept in the municipal offices and directly relevant to the business being considered. Upon any demand being made, the Chief Executive Officer must apply best endeavours to produce the documents at the meeting or, if this is not feasible, as soon as practicable after that time.
AND
A Councillor may request an audio copy of a Council Meeting or Committee meeting (if recorded).
Dandenong: A Councillor may request at a Council meeting to immediately make available any documents kept in the municipal offices and relevant to the business being considered. Upon any request being made, the Chief Executive Officer must use his or her best endeavours to make available the documents.
BUT IN GLEN EIRA: Unthinkable! All our councillors can do is ‘ask for a report’. Information is the exclusive domain of officers. They undoubtedly drip feed what they want, when they want. Requests for audio recordings meet with the Burke response of “I will have to consider that’. It was never made available! Even spending thousands of dollars on lawyers to fight FOI applications for information is also not beyond them.
Petitions
Please note that in Glen Eira there is NO FORMAL POLICY on petitions. The word petition does not exist in the Local Law except as the token reference in the ‘order of business’. Instead, the website states that petitions must be handed in 2 days prior to Burke, who then presumably ‘vets’ them and is permitted to make his own editorial comments. Below is a list of those councils who see fit to empower the elected representatives (ie COUNCILLORS) to take responsibility for petitions and that it be councillors who table such petitions at ordinary council meetings.
Ararat
Ballarat
Baw Baw
Benalla
Boroondara
Brimbank
Buloke
Campaspe
Casey
Colac
East Gippsland
Frankston
Gannawarra
Golden Plains
Greater Dandenong
Greater Shepparton
Hepburn
Hindmarsh
Hobsons Bay
Horsham
Hume
Indigo
Kingston
Knox
Latrobe
Loddon
Macedon Ranges
Manningham
Mansfield
Melton
Mitchell Shire
Moira Shire
Moorabool
Moreland
Mount Alexander
Moyne
Murrundindi
Nillumbik
Northern Grampians
Pyrenees
Queenscliff
South Gippsland
Southern Grampians
Strathbogie
Swan Hill
Towong
Wangaratta
Warrnambool
Wellington
Whitehorse
Yarra City
Yarra Ranges
Glen Eira Debates 
January 20, 2013 at 11:10 AM
Another nail in the coffin of good government at Glen Eira.
January 20, 2013 at 11:48 AM
Newton and his gang deserve congratulations for reducing Glen Eira to the worst run council in the state. There has to be an investigation why and how this has happened and what the probable pay offs are for those involved.
January 20, 2013 at 2:05 PM
Petitions are pretty much a waste of time in Glen eira. All that happens is that they get “noted” and then forgotten about. I know that other places make sure that officers deal with the requests from petitions and then report back to the council. It’s all for show with this place to fool people into thinking that they give a hoot about what residents want and need.
January 20, 2013 at 6:46 PM
Remember that the Councillors we are criticising were resoundingly returned. As they have pointed out quite often.
I’ve said many times most municipal voters are at best ambivalent and at worst ignorant when it come to matters municipal. Or, for that matter, government generally. That’s why I always felt not much would change post election. We get the government we deserve.
January 20, 2013 at 7:07 PM
Yup, they were returned but things are different. There’s a new green and if he’s worth his salt then he will go with Pilling on the Notice of motion. There’s also Delahunty who wouldn’t be a fan of Lipshutz. Lobo won’t last the journey. That means Andonopoulos will probably get in or the other Green. Magee will vote with these now that gesac is done. The balance of power is shifting. It just needs a few good nudges and the whole pack of cards will collapse. Anyone been reading The Age and the mother and son act of Peulich in Kingston? I would think the same applies in Glen Eira with the Lipshutz/Hyams/Southwick liaison.
January 20, 2013 at 9:21 PM
Lobo has cast his lot in with the reactionaries by taking the thirty pieces of silver -ie Deputy Mayor. The reactionaries therefore have Hyams, Lipshutz, Esakoff, Okotel and Lobo. That’s all they need.
I hope you’re right about the graduate of Pacific Southern University. However I reckon he’ll hang on for the notoriety and additional money knowing his constituency won’t wear him again.
January 20, 2013 at 8:51 PM
In Glen Eira, only Council can ask for a report, not councillors. A councillor can move a motion requesting a report if the chair permits, but Council then has to resolve to support the motion. The motion can be defeated of course: fail to get a seconder, or not get a majority, or lose the casting vote of the Mayor.
The tight control of information that the CEO exercises is a bigger problem, and conflicts with Councillor’s Code of Conduct. The sloppily edited Code literally says, “Relevant information should not be available to some parties but not others.” The Code only applies to Councillors, and as far as the public knows, there is no similar code that applies to Council Staff. Based on the recent VCAT decision, Council Staff can refuse to make information available, even when requested under FOI, under all circumstances since any information could cause mischief. It does make a mockery of the duty on Councillors to give reasons “for decision and restricting information only when the wider public interest clearly demands”. The FOI hearing at VCAT established that “Council” means Council Staff, not the 9 Councillors.
So we have a situation where powers are delegated, the delegated powers aren’t subject to accountability or transparency provisions, Councillors are powerless since the CEO is the only person responsible for Staff, the CEO doesn’t accept accountability and controls Council’s agenda, the “watchdogs” [Local Government Inspectorate, Ombudsman] are borderline useless, and bureaucrats continue to reign unchecked.
Unrelated, but Glen Eira sure dodged a bullet with the defeat of the Peulich triumvirate in 2003.
January 20, 2013 at 10:00 PM
I had the displeasure of encountering Inga when she was the Bentleigh seat warmer. Ugh!
January 20, 2013 at 10:23 PM
Councillors sign a document each year that
“delegates” their power to various staff employed in the town hall. They can’t have it both ways. They have handed their power to the employees and they are not going to hand it back. You know how to fix this situation.
January 21, 2013 at 1:17 PM
Thanks Glen Eira Debates for keeping us, the paying suckers informed. I have not looked at GED for a while. Excellent work with a focus on Local Law provisions (or NOT) and its implementations (or NOT).
I think that a focus on Financial Accountability would be also revealing. As a start the way finances are reported in various Council documents may be useful. Somehow I have that irksome feeling we are not being told how this Council is traveling financially. A good example was highlighted in the post on ‘Drains, Flooding and Spin galore’ Here are some other reasons why I have this irksome feeling:
* Projects that have had Government funding (State or Federal) seem to have had an application for as much money as possible without justifications of its needs and with Councillors having concerns more with getting it rather than with planning for the future (eg parks plinths, sporting grounds but no creches);
* Large projects with State or Federal Government support do not seem to be on Budget or timely resulting in Budget deficit and Council debt (eg Carnegie library, GESAC etc);
* Glen Eira is considered a very rich Council that can be debt free, yet it seems to run on a policy of debt financing for many, many years. Why?
* There has never been an investigation into efficiency and effectiveness of Glen Eira’s organisation. Of course why should that happen if we are told that we are the best. And can you see anything substantial come out of the proposed investigation into organisational structure conducted by the Administration? Usually this is done when a new CEO comes on the scene. Here a cover up is sort of inevitable;
* Some years ago there was an issue of getting a proper census done on Glen Eira’s assets and facilities. The computer program was not tracking it properly. Was that fixed? Is the reporting of Glen Eira’s Assets and Liabilities in the Annual Report reflect the true nature of Glen Eira’s riches and debt?
* There is not a single Councillor that can assess the financial implications of Budgets and reports. No questions during Council meetings.
These are some of the reasons for a focus on finances in Glen Eira.