Burke read the petition. Lobo spoke first and said that since Lipshutz, Hyams and Esakoff are ‘mentioned’ in the petition that he ‘believed there is a conflict of interest’ and that these individuals shouldn’t be in the chamber when the petition was being discussed. Hyams responded that since Lobo’s comments ‘didn’t relate to the running of the meeting’ that this wasn’t a point of order. Hyams went on and said that he trusts that ‘the next time you put your hand up for a committee’ or deputy mayor or mayor that he would declare a conflict and leave the meeting. Delahunty moved to accept the motion and Magee seconded.
DELAHUNTY: short and sweet and basically moved to accept
MAGEE: said nothing
HYAMS: thought that the petition was ‘pathetic’ and didn’t want to ‘set a precedent’ where ‘we’re rehashing council decisions because some people don’t like it’ and that would lead to petitions on all council decisions.Said that the government appointed the 3 councillors ‘who came first in their wards’. Read out the numbers of first preference votes for each of the three councillors that people ‘are happy to have those councillors representing them’ and ’64 people come along and think they are more important’ and this ‘shows at the very least an exaggerated sense of their own importance’. Went on to say that it was ‘very sad’ that people can be ‘so spiteful’ and that he knows what’s ‘behind it’ and the ‘people behind it’ and it doesn’t ‘surprise’ him at all.
LIPSHUTZ: said the petition was ‘ridiculous’ but that ‘when any member of this council’ is appointed that they’re appointed as ‘representatives of council’ and ‘we in fact act on behalf of the community’. Spoke about the Leader article and Magee and ‘what he tried to achieve’ and that was following council policy and he’s (Lipshutz) asked for the same things since ‘2005’. This wasn’t ‘something new’ it was what ‘council has approved’. Council doesn’t want training at the racecourse which is what Magee was advocating and it’s what council wants too. The petition is ‘ridiculous’ and just ‘shows the small minded people’…’we’re councillors and we’re here for the benefit of the community’. People mightn’t like every decision but the choice is ‘vote us out’. Voters had ‘confidence’ about all 9 councillors and even though they’ve got different views on things ‘we are a councillor group as one’ and as trustees they ‘will be there to support the community’
PILLING: said that this is the first time he’s had a petition like this which ‘is really a personal attack’ and ‘defamatory’. Thought that there are time when ‘you should draw a line in the sand’ on ‘what’s fair, what’s reasonable’ and that council needs to have ‘some standards’ so in that context he won’t be supporting the motion.
LOBO: fully understood what Hyams had said and that ‘i’m a councillor as well’…’I didn’t feel too happy when you said there are no grounds’. Mentioned ‘freedom of speech’ and ‘freedom of choice’ and the importance of saying what one feels and that’s why he’s been put in this council by Tucker Ward residents
ESAKOFF: wasn’t going to speak and doesn’t want to give this ‘any further oxygen’ since it doesn’t ‘deserve any’. The petition is ‘vexatious’, ‘nasty’. ‘Unfortunately it’s been moved and seconded’ whereas she would have preferred for this to ‘lie on the table’
DELAHUNTY: felt obligated to move the petition since it’s ‘come before us in the proper manner’ but ‘accepts’ that those councillors named may find it ‘vexatious’. Lipshutz made a good point about acknowledging the work of Magee in that ‘he certainly brought matters to the fore’ and ‘raised the profile of the MRC’ in the community. She hoped that the new trustees would be able to ‘carry on that momentum’ and that the community ‘would like to see a review of the trust structure’
MOTION PUT. IN FAVOUR OF ACCEPTING PETITION – DELAHUNTY, MAGEE, LOBO
AGAINST: Hyams, Esakoff, Lipshutz, Pilling, Sounness, Okotel
Glen Eira Debates 
February 27, 2013 at 7:13 AM
(MODERATORS: comment deleted).
February 27, 2013 at 7:58 AM
Council’s handling of the petition comes as no surprise.
Council has two standard petition handling procedures – “file and forget” or “shoot the messenger and ignore the message”. No prizes for guessing which procedure they adopted in this case.
February 27, 2013 at 8:38 AM
Hyams’ remarks are offensive in the extreme. They imply that council decisions are always correct and sacrosanct and that residents be denied the opportunity to express their opinion or opposition. In Glen Eira the opportunity to express an opinion is practically non-existent. Petitions are one form of remedying this situation. Petitions are also well established traditions in all democracies. Not in Glen Eira.
Countless other injustices spring to mind here – the question of conflict of interest and Hyams berating of Lobo and the ethics if not straight out legality of Lipshutz, Hyams and Esakoff not only remaining in the chamber but taking part in the vote. What is defamatory is not the petition but the remarks of Hyams, Lipshutz, Esakoff and Pilling and the arrogance and disregard for community sentiment.
February 27, 2013 at 9:59 AM
I didn’t sign the petition but would have if I had had the opportunity. The appointment of these three Councillors as Trustees of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve is an affront to any person who believes in democratic principles and the concept of “good” governance.
That being said I find Hyams’s comments particularly offensive and, to the extent that they shed light on the way this Council regularly treats petitions (ie. just ignore), illuminating. His comment on the petition being “pathetic” is gratuitous but the real offensiveness comes from not wanting to accept the petition because he “didn’t want to ‘set a precedent’ where ‘we’re rehashing council decisions because some people don’t like it” which is followed by a comment that the signatories to the petition think they are more important than anyone else.
A petition is a well established, legitimate method of allowing the public to register their support, for or against, a particular issue. Historically, petitions have been used to raise public awareness of issues/causes and have often been so successful that they have resulted changes to, or reversal of, many governmental decisions. Signing a petition is a valid means of recording/expressing an individual’s opinion which when appended to a petition represents a collective opinion.
Hyams’s comments are therefore disgraceful (as are those of Pilling and Esakoff). With leadership of this calibre it is no wonder that Glen Eira has a long and consistent history of disregarding residents while pursuing it’s own agenda.
February 27, 2013 at 10:01 AM
The appointments of the gang had nothing to do with the votes they got and anyone who believes that is an idiot. They got there because they’re libs, because they’re good mrc supporters and because southwick pushed like hell to get them there. Even if they did get the most votes it’s not because people reckon they’re gods and it doesn’t mean that every decision they make is what people will support. It’s a pathetic argument but a hell of a lot easier to bullshit than to accept the truth that all this has been engineered and its the dirty game of politics where everyone is up to their necks in the shit.
February 27, 2013 at 10:20 AM
Some basic principles are involved here and have been covered okay by other people so I won’t rehash what’s already been said. I want to focus on the pretty lame efforts by the labor councillors. They’ve gone through the motions and that’s about it. For Delahunty to say that she understands Lipshutz’s point of view on this doesn’t do her any credit and Magee’s silence is also damning. Pilling and Sounness aren’t even worth talking about. Pilling lost his soul to the gang years ago. Someone said here ages ago he’s green on the outside and very yellow on the inside. I agree with that wholeheartedly.
February 27, 2013 at 10:49 AM
Hyams is a total joke and a disgrace. If three councillors are allowed to vote on something when under the cloud of conflict of interest then it’s all about running the meeting and Lobo’s objectiion to their presence is valid. Hyams refusal to accept this is another example of how good governance doesn’t exist under this regime. The law is for everyone else and not for the gang.
February 27, 2013 at 11:12 AM
The petition protest was against the perceived ‘undemocratic’ outcome of the appointment. What the protesters should do is arrange a protest on April 21 when Ryan Smith, Minister for Climate Change and David Southwick, MP for Caulfield will open the limited access to the Centre of the racecourse. While this sounds good and it may be going in the right direction, it falls very short of the 3 elements that Cr Jim Magee recommended last year (see article above). In addition there are 2 more points that needs to be added to his list: a) two thirds of the Caulfield Racecourse to be devoted to recreational and open park; and b) removal of all gambling commercial activities from the crown land like of course betting and pokies.
There is also the issue of over-development of Caulfield Village. Huge problem by 2020.
February 27, 2013 at 12:17 PM
In case people haven’t picked it up, the Herald Sun article we published in our last post got it all wrong. They claimed that there would be “340 residential units”. That’s about a fifth of the projected tally at this stage! Whether this is a “clerical error” on the part of the newspaper, or coming from the MRC “fact file” is anybody’s guess!
February 27, 2013 at 2:48 PM
Cr. Lobo should take some time to read the Local Law. A person declaring a conflict of interest may stay in the chamber for the debate but has to leave for the vote. This bloke doesn’t understand what he is doing. As for trying to rearrange the seating plan. He must think everyone is stupid. No one should take this bloke seriously.
February 27, 2013 at 2:56 PM
We advise that you would do well to refer to the Local Government Act 1989, Section 79 (6 & 7) which states –
“While the matter is being considered or any vote is taken in relation to
the matter, the Councillor or member of a special committee must-
(a) leave the room and notify the Mayor or the Chairperson of the special
committee that he or she is doing so; and
(b) remain outside the room and any gallery or other area in view or
hearing of the room.
(7) The Mayor or the Chairperson of the special committee must cause the
Councillor or member of a special committee to be notified that he or she may
return to the room after-
(a) consideration of the matter; and
(b) all votes on the matter.”
This makes it clear that no individual may be present during discussion. Further, it has been ‘tradition’ in Glen Eira Council that once a conflict is declared that those councillors leave the chamber and return only after the vote is taken. Council’s Local Law which doesn’t state what you claim it does in our view, is subservient to the legislative act. Cr Lobo was correct in drawing Hyams attention to this matter. What should be questioned are Hyams responses and how well they adhere to the requirements of the Local Law and in fact the legislation.
February 27, 2013 at 4:44 PM
ah … no wonder the Trustees did not declare ‘conflict of interest’, the petition would otherwise be .accepted. with ‘frisbee’ case Lipshutz did not declare a ‘conflict’ either, although his son was involved. someone should complain to the Ombudsman!
February 27, 2013 at 4:43 PM
If the wording of the petition was no more or no less than what was shown in the previous thread here my response is that those who opposed it are a group of oversensitive, defensive councillors who are too insecure to deal with reasonable criticism.
The response from Lipshutz, his lackey Hyams and Esakoff are predictable. However, Pilling’s line in the sand rant is immature. God help that insecure little flower should he ever get into the bear pit state or federal politics if something like this petition offends his sensibilities. Sounness needs to grow a pair too. 😡
Kudos to Delahunty, Magee and Lobo for illustrating they appreciate the democratic process in action.
February 27, 2013 at 11:34 PM
Anon 9
Your comments clearly shows that you are an ineffectual person, You surely are a coconut without coconut juice and have a dried copra material similar to the one you have upstairs. You must either be a Councillor or a related to one. Learn something from the learned and cease your baloney.
Your comment is completely foolish as well. You should ask for a copy of the Local Law. Put your mouth into gear before putting your mouth/fingers in motion.
February 28, 2013 at 9:32 AM
Winners are grinners. Look how the vote went. It is over.
February 28, 2013 at 12:50 PM
Hi Rolly, you sound a bit like Lobo. Welcome back to the blog.