Two items of interest feature in the upcoming council meeting –
- The demise of the Racecourse Special Committee
- Council’s belated ‘position statement’ on the centre of the racecourse
The demise of the Racecourse Special Committee comes as no surprise given that it has already performed its ‘dirty deeds’ and we now have Esakoff, Hyams and Lipshutz as MRC Trustees. The committee has served its purpose!
The second item, whilst most welcome, is also very belated and ironic in that it reiterates many of the points that Penhalluriack was insisting upon years ago. The tragedy is, that this position is AFTER THE FACT and should have been ‘non-negotiable’ right from the start. Writing to a bunch of Ministers and parliamentarians after the horse has literally bolted rings hollow indeed.
A few points are worth pointing out in this Newton drafted pitch for posterity –
- ‘recreation’ has morphed into ‘sporting grounds’ whereas the original ‘agreement’ forbade ‘ball games’
- It’s also quite amusing to read ‘The area allocated for community sports grounds should be no less than the area allocated for race tracks’. Given that it was Council which passed the Centre of the Racecourse permit and allowed leggo land fencing to encroach more and more on OUR land, then these words are nothing more than another public relations exercise.
- Lipservice is also paid to the major bone of contention –‘training should be phased out’ – but with no set time line, etc.
- One positive note that echoes Penhalluriack and Magee is the notation that commercial rates should be paid for this Crown Land.
- Access is of course mentioned, but not a word about why fences are still up, nor hours of access.
We reiterate. This statement is welcomed but far, far too late. The failure of the Special Committee and Newton to insist on these right from the start should never be forgotten. As for ‘outcomes’ from this? Well, we’re not holding our breath given history and certain letters from the DSE, plus Premier Napthine’s love of racing.
Glen Eira Debates 
March 17, 2013 at 10:23 AM
Machiavelli would be proud of Newton on this one.
March 17, 2013 at 11:20 AM
Have to agree that it is too little too late. Public posturing and that’s it. All the secret deals have been hatched and signed and sealed and delivered.
March 17, 2013 at 2:44 PM
The report is an absolute insult to the many many residents who objected to both the C60 overdevelopment and the landscaping of the centre of the racecourse which allowed the MRC to grab another chunk of the centre. And you are right moderators – Newton and the gang, after slamming Penhalluriack when he raised these issues at the appropriate time, are now admitting the validity of his arguments.
As for the removal of training – it gets raised every 2 to 3 years. Last raised in 2009 it was given a 10 year time limit, now in 2013 it’s again raised but this time it is without a time limit. Shameful.
March 17, 2013 at 5:05 PM
The lameduck excuses for getting rid of the special committee should be minted. Doesn’t explain why the special committee only consisted of the gang and not Lobo or why it was even necessary.There still would have been a quorum. Pure bullshit. Trouble is that most of these dummies were duped or threatened or had rings run around them by all Newton’s lawyers. Winky pop only happened because a councillor put in a submission and then voted on it. If you wanted to you could use Winky pop to the municipal inspectors reports where Hyams and Esakoff wanted to get rid of Newton and then said they changed their minds because he was so wonderful. That’s the real joke. Best is that winky pop should be applied to the special committee because they bent over backwards to give Newton and the mrc everything they wanted. That’s fair dinkum winky pop.
March 17, 2013 at 8:07 PM
Reliable sources have informed that when councillors were elected in 2008, Hyams and Esakoff in the first meeting demanded the sacking of Newton because they believed Newton was responsible for the investigations by the inspectorate that followed their sacking in the previous term. (MODERATORS: rest of comment deleted. Further, we would seriously question the veracity of the opening sentence given that the re-election was in November 2005 which installed what is colloquially called ‘the gang’ at that time – Lipshutz, Esakoff, Tang and the then latest addition – Ashmor. Hyams did not stand for re-election until 2008)
March 17, 2013 at 10:09 PM
It is appropriate for Andrew Newton’s brainchild to die, but it should never have been created in the first place. The “justification” provided for its creation was so ill-conceived, so lacking in foundation, it shouldn’t have been supported by councillors. No councillor has made a submission for or against C60, and no councillor has made a submission for or against the MRC park in the centre of the racecourse. Nor has it been demonstrated that any councillor has accepted applicable gifts exceeding the gift disclosure threshold, or accepted unreasonable hospitality from the MRC or Trustees. The true meaning of the “Winky Pop” decision has been exaggerated by our CEO, and probably by many other bureaucrats. If ever Council did find itself unable to transact business because of conflict of interest, Council or the CEO can apply to the Minister for an exemption [LGA S80(1)].
If there really is a concern about “Winky Pop”, then here’s some advice from the local government sector. Ensure “quality council reports” are provided and considered. “Good administrative decision making practice requires that council decisions be made properly, openly, impartially, and for justifiable reasons”. Hold “open, transparent, and well-conducted council meetings”. Administration should ensure “all the relevant information is made available to councillors”. In planning matters, “Councillors can’t give free rein to their individual opinions. Their opinions, which may have been highly relevant and appropriate at the policymaking stage, are not relevant when the policy is being administered.” If only council staff with delegated powers were similarly encumbered.
March 17, 2013 at 10:50 PM
We’ve covered the creation of the Special Committee and the spurious Winky Pop claims in the past. Readers may refresh their memories from the following URLs –
https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2010/12/01/c60-winky-pop-conflict-of-interest/
https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2012/06/19/racecourse-machinations-a-little-history/
https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2010/11/24/council-meeting-continued/
March 17, 2013 at 11:33 PM
Tuesday’s council meeting will probably bring the curtain down on the shabbiest and darkest period in Glen Eira’s history – the extinction of the special committee. I am glad it will no longer exist, but I abhor the duplicity with which it was created and the sacrifice of all semblance of how a council and councillors should behave. The collusion between certain individuals to thwart democratic process and ignore community sentiment is reprehensible.
March 18, 2013 at 10:48 AM
It is simply incredible to read Andrew Newton’s arguments for why the Caulfield Racecourse Precinct Special Committee was necessary and why there is no reason Council couldn’t deal with these matters now.
* Area of land has been reduced—yet the Special Committee was specifically tasked to deal with all issues involving MRC, and the MRC very much remains involved with C60 and may still be there 20 years from now. If the MRC goes outside of the Incorporated Plan then further planning permission will need to be sought.
* Frank Penhalluriack no longer a councillor—yet that is just one person, and he was probably bullied into declaring a conflict of interest through the CEO’s misinterpretation of Winky Pop decision.
* A majority of councillors have never been Trustees—yet being a Trustee isn’t a conflict of interest, and in the future a majority of councillors may be or have been Trustees, irrespective of the 3 recent appointees voting in self-interest against accepting a petition concerning themselves.
* CoI provisions relating to hospitality have been clarifed—which were first clarified in 2009 and again in 2010, and which was known to Crs Hyams, Lipshutz, Esakoff when they voted against disbanding the Committee in 2010.
I wasn’t a petitioner but I can see how the petitioners had a reasonable apprehension of bias about the 3 new Trustees. Few people would expect consistency from councillors, especially if their decision-making isn’t based on policy or principle. What arguments will Crs Lipshutz and Hyams use this time to counter their 2010 arguments? The “risks” identified in 2010 remain and so has the perception of bias.
March 18, 2013 at 2:03 PM
Reprobate I was a petitioner. I have nothing personally against any of the Councillors appointed. Why did I sign? Because I have many concerns with the process, one being that they were three of the four who deliberated on the C60 proposal and decision. I would have not had a problem if one of two of said Councillors had been appointed, but not all three. It is a matter of perception and in this case there needed to be at least one new Councillor without previous association with the MRC. Councillor Magee obviously paid the price of asking too many questions.
Finally, I can see why people do not put their name to this blog if you can expect to be subjected to the same unprofessional and vitriolic response said petitioners experienced at the last Council meeting (as reported on this blog) – with no right of reply.
As a resident and ratepayer I am entitled to petition against anything at all I have concerns about, whether or not the Councillors or the administration agree with me or not. I commend those Councillors who recognised that right and voted accordingly.
March 18, 2013 at 11:51 AM
It behoves us all to remember the sequence of events and what transpired. All of the following is taken directly from council minutes.
FEBRUARY 22ND, 2011
“URGENT BUSINESS
Crs Penhalluriack/Forge
That Council consider Council’s position on the interior of the racecourse as a
matter of Urgent Business.
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Cr Tang declared a Conflict of Interest and indirect interest due to conflicting
duties under S78B of the Local Government Act as he is a Trustee of Caulfield
Racecourse Reserve.
9.02pm Cr Tang left the Briefing Room.
The MOTION was put and CARRIED.
Item 10.1 – CAULFIELD RACECOURSE
Crs Penhalluriack/Forge
That Council’s vision for the Crown Land known as the Caulfield Racecourse
Reserve be codified so that the State Government has a clear and
unambiguous picture of how Council envisions the land to be shared between
the uses of a Racecourse, a public recreation ground and a public park, as
follows.
1. That the opaque fences be replaced by palisade fencing as soon as
possible;
2. That the centre of the circumferential training tracks be fenced off and
the general public be given exclusive and unrestricted access via the
tunnel from Glen Eira Road to this entire area;
3. That the Melbourne Racing Club landscape this area to plans and
specifications to be agreed with Council, but which will include sporting
ovals, areas for passive use, change areas and toilets;
4. That a firm timetable be set for the expeditious removal of horse training
from the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve so the Crown Land used for
training can be made progressively available for unrestricted public use.
5. That aside from the tunnel there be further public access to the centre
of the Racecourse.
6. That car parking not be permitted in the centre of the Racecourse
except in association with the use by the public of the public park.
7. That the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve be administered by Independent
Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trust not dominated by any one group
AMENDMENT
Crs Hyams/Lipshutz
Add the following; and that the Mayor and CEO be authorised to liaise with the
Government of the State of Victoria in order to achieve Council’s vision.
The AMENDMENT was put and LOST.
COMMENTS:
1. At the very next council meeting (after Newton was voted OFF the team) the gang got their act together and engineered his ‘recruitment’
2. Council’s ‘vision’ was set in 2011 – why are we now getting this ‘position statement’?
3. The Hyams/Lipshutz motion reads that decisions on the centre of the racecourse were to be made by COUNCIL RESOLUTION – that means full council given the upper case and not the Special committee! So here we go again where resolutions aren’t carried out. We have to even wonder whether this is all legal in the end?
The SUBSTANTIVE MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously.”
MARCH 15TH, 2011
URGENT BUSINESS – Nil
Crs Penhalluriack/Forge
That a matter relating to the Melbourne Racing Club be considered as a matter
for Urgent Business.
The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously.
Item 10.1 MELBOURNE RACING CLUB
Crs Penhalluriack/Forge
That Council invites authorized representatives of the Melbourne Racing Club to meet with Councillors to discuss future arrangements, including timetables, for the sharing of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Crown Land. The Mayor shall open the meeting and introduce Councillors Forge and Magee who shall explain, using overheads, Council’s position. The meeting shall then be open for all Councillors and MRC representatives to contribute. The meeting shall be minuted.
DIVISION
Cr Penhalluriack called for a Division on the voting of the Motion.
FOR
Cr Penhalluriack
Cr Forge
Cr Magee
Cr Lobo
AGAINST – PILLING, TANG, ESAKOFF, LIPSHUTZ, HYAMS
On the basis of the Division the Chairperson declared the Motion LOST.
Crs Lipshutz/Hyams
That a matter concerning the Melbourne Racing Club be considered a matter of Urgent Business.
The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously.
Crs Lipshutz/Hyams
That Council authorize Andrew Newton, Chief Executive Officer, Cr Margaret
Esakoff, Mayor, Cr Michael Lipshutz, Chair of the Caulfield Racecourse
Precinct Special Committee and Cr Jim Magee, member of the Caulfield
Racecourse Reserve Trust, to meet with representatives of the Melbourne
Racing Club to put Council’s position in relation to the improvements to the
centre of the Racecourse, after which they will report back to Councillors
promptly and in detail. Any decisions would be made by Council
resolution.
PROCEDURAL MOTION
Crs Hyams/Lipshutz
That an extension of time be granted for tonight’s Council Meeting to conclude
at 11.00pm.
The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously.
The SUBSTANTIVE MOTION was put and CARRIED.
March 18, 2013 at 11:55 AM
Also on the Agenda is a proposed sale of part of a laneway at a massive 50% discount of Market value. All residents should be wondering why Council would grant such a whopping discount and why, since the proposed purchaser is keen to acquire, Council doesn’t even attempt to realise greater value for its asset. The officer report disingenuously first claims “It is likely the section of laneway has been fenced for more than 12 years” [note that there is no demonstration of continuous and exclusive occupation] and then later claims “the land has been occupied for more than 12 years (as in this case)”.
Nowhere is there a mention of Council’s policy that “Owners are discouraged from occupying land which they hold no title to, and without consideration of the rights of other parties over the land”. One way of discouraging people is to ensure they don’t benefit from such activity.
Well Councillors, are you going to maximise the value of our assets? Are you going to require demonstration of continuous and exclusive access for 12 years? You could demand the fence be torn down as you have done elsewhere, and ensure any future sale is based on other provisions of the Rights of Way and Reserves—Discontinuance and Sale policy. Could Council do something useful with an extra $12272?
March 18, 2013 at 12:35 PM
Worth mentioning here that the sale of land to the MRC was $140,000 for 100 sq metres. The argument there for not getting ‘value’ was that it was against policy and had undergone a valuation! Seems that some valuations are far more ‘equal than others’ or could it be that both the MRC and this particular resident are ‘favoured clients’?
March 18, 2013 at 1:16 PM
An argument against the sale of the land is that laneways like this one are important for vehicle access if it is likely the property will be redeveloped in the future into a mixed use development with substantial residential component. Since it is located on a fixed-route public transport, with both public open space and shops and services (Elsternwick Urban Village) in easy walking distance, those properties are very likely to be redeveloped into 4-storey (or higher) multi-unit dwellings with carparking needs.
March 18, 2013 at 1:32 PM
Now this is a very, very interesting discussion in light of the fact that another item to be decided is the Road register. Anyone bothered to have a close look at this? I think it tells an important tale about how much is flogged off so that development can bulldoze its way through unimpeded. Rights of way become parts of developments like the Etna St one and its goodbye to access. Nothing wrong in selling land that is useless but if developers get it so that they can build 20 units instead of 16 then that’s another question and how much they get it for needs to be looked at carefully. Where the money ends up and why its not used for purchasing open space is the killer question.
March 18, 2013 at 1:00 PM
This is going to be a good test for Lobo Magee Delahunty Okotel and Sounness. They shouldn’t accept the newton vision without changing it. Time lines for getting rid of training have to be put in for starters. If this gets through without any changes then all of them should resign immediately.
March 18, 2013 at 1:40 PM
Training will go only when the Minister says it will go. Council has no authority to demand anything. Lobo ,Okotel and Maggie are just set wormers, (MODERATORS: rest of sentence deleted).
March 18, 2013 at 1:51 PM
I think people should read the agenda for the meeting as this blog does is being a bit unfair on the council as it does not cover everything. I know the horse has bolted but it says things like parking moved off racecourse and using mutli level car parks in Monash. Also gives uses of multi purpose racecourses elsewhere in the world.
March 18, 2013 at 2:43 PM
We direct you to our previous comment and extracts from the various minutes. The ‘vision’ was set 2 years ago but it has not been implemented. Newton’s pretend ‘new’ vision is a rehash of the old even to the extent of pinching Penhalluriack’s example of the Happy Valley Racecourse. We do not resile from our comments that the Special Committee was an unmitigated disaster, totally unrepresentative, and undemocratic. All dealings that have occurred between Council, the MRC, government and other individuals warrants a full Royal Commission.
March 18, 2013 at 5:37 PM
If the Glen Eira Council voted 100% to toss the MRC off the race track a way would be found to stop that happening. C60 was given special status by the Minister. It was never going to fail regardless of what the Council thought of the plans.