Below is an exchange that occurred at last night’s council meeting under the guise of ‘Councillor Questions’. Readers should note:
- The item on the Caulfield Racecourse had already been decided. If Hyams wished to ask or question anything that was the time that it should have been asked as he has himself ruled for other councillors in the past – especially Penhalluriack.
- How can a Mayor rule on a point of order on himself? Hyams should have stood down
- Hyams did not declare the section of the Local Law that governed his ruling as required
- This was nothing more than an attempt to gain a cheap and irrelevant shot at the Labor party. There was no explanation of what was ‘misleading’ in Magee’s statements.
- Once again governance is the victim in Glen Eira.
- Once again the entire truth is never uttered. The special committee gave the initial go-ahead for the C60 of which Hyams was a part of. The Minister simply endorsed what he said (erroneously) at the time was a ‘council decision’. In reality it was a decision of 4 councillors only!
COUNCILLOR QUESTIONS
HYAMS: said he had a question for Newton ‘on very short notice’ and hoped that he ‘could handle it’. Hyams said that on the Racecourse item Magee had been talking about the landswap which ‘was quite scandalous’ and that the government has since then allowed the C60 so he wondered if Newton could tell ‘us which government was actually in power and approved’ the land swap.
DELAHUNTY: ‘Point of order Mr Mayor’. Said that she didn’t think this was ‘relevant’ to any point that Hyams was making.
Hyams then turned to ‘Mr Newton’ but Delahunty asked that ‘he rule on the point of order’.
HYAMS: thought that it was ‘relevant’ because there were ‘points made during the debate which might be misleading’ and that ‘I wish to get a clarification’
NEWTON: said that the landswap ‘required legislation’ and this was passed in the ‘last term of parliament’ and it was supported by both the Libs and Labor and opposed by the Greens’.
Glen Eira Debates 
March 20, 2013 at 7:41 PM
Hyams is not a democratically elected Mayor, he is nothing more than the winner of a 50/50 coin toss. I think the premier needs to investigate this obvious conflict!
March 20, 2013 at 9:13 PM
Correction Anonymous – Hyams won by a coin toss 2 years ago. Last year the vote was 5 to 4. Hardly a ringing endorsement!
March 20, 2013 at 7:51 PM
C60 and the land swap were both products of the Labor Government. Nothing wrong with either so it is puzzling to see Delahunty trying to cover up what has happened.
March 21, 2013 at 9:02 AM
Not true – the majority of the backroom wheeling and dealings went on when the Labor was in government (and the 3 lib Councillors and 1 green on the Special Committee bent over backwards to give the MRC exactly what they wanted while excluding residents where ever possible). However the actual approval occurred when the Liberals, who in the form of Southwick actively campaigned against it, were in power.
The C60 development was approved by the Council’s Special Committee after the election of a Liberal Govt. The Special Committee’s approval removed the residents rights to object to the development and placed all future planning issues in the hands of the newly elected Liberal state government. The Liberals, in the form of Matthew Guy, are the ones who gave the green light – they are the one’s who backflipped on promises and endorsed the backroom deals and ratified the infamous landswap agreement.
March 21, 2013 at 4:41 PM
Rubbish. It started with Maddern declaring a Special Development Zone followed by ALP member and supporter Stuart Morris drafting C60 for the MRC. It was always going to happen regardless of which Government was in power. The MRC is powerful. I doubt that it is a vote changer. Only a handful of people that live near the track are concerned about C60. Most other think it is good to concerntrate development away from their nice quiet Caulfield streets.
March 20, 2013 at 8:25 PM
MODERATORS: entire comment deleted
March 20, 2013 at 9:19 PM
Hyams big mouth, (MODERATORS: phrase deleted)
March 20, 2013 at 9:36 PM
Newton has got more brains than Hyams. He left him with his pants hanging down round his ankles and his tail firmly between his legs.
March 20, 2013 at 9:57 PM
Hyams would do the community a great service if he were to resign immediately. Someone who is evidently incapable of carrying out the governance requirements of the position has forfeited all claims to that position. This isn’t the first, and undoubtedly not the last time that issues of propriety and governance will surface under his reign. He has repeatedly displayed an inability to accept any form of criticism whether this be from residents or colleagues. Nor has he been able to judiciously and fairly deal with criticism. Such arrogance should not be tolerated by anyone, much less a council that requires leadership and collegiality from its appointed spokesperson. Hyams has failed dismally on all these requirements.
March 20, 2013 at 11:41 PM
Conflict of interest is not something that worries Hyams or Lipshutz. They ride roughshot over it all. Lipshutz doesn’t have a conflict of interest over his son’s involvement in frisbee games. There’s also no conflict when he advocates that setbacks on Emmy Monash should go and that’s despite his mate and applicant handing out the gang’s voting cards. None of this is a conflict in their understanding of the word and world. Hyams is another kettle of fish. How he can make a ruling on himself and not see that this is the most obvious example of a conflict of interest is just beyond me. But we’re living in a different universe. What applies to mere mortals such as residents and coucillor opponents doesn’t apply to these two. They must see themselves as totally above the law. If they’re not comfortable with that then they simply rewrite the law to suit themselves. Remember the meeting procedures and Lipshutz’s eventual success in installing the no surprises policy.
I congratulate Delahunty for calling Hyams to order. If more councillors did this more often then there might be some chance that this council would be a far more decent, fair and transparent place.
March 21, 2013 at 9:22 AM
Time and time again we see the local law and meeting procedures used to gag Councillors in open Council Meetings. Trouble is no Councillor knows them – ergo the Mayor (in this case Hyams or more infamously his predecessor Maggie) and the objectionable Lipshutz feels free use the law and meeting procedure to gag other Councillors when they see fit – seeing fit being when either an opposing view is being presented, or a discussion has gone on “long enough” in their view or a negative allegation can be made and the response denied.
Councillor’s should all know the local law and meeting procedures inside out and not be able to be bluffed into silence by Hyams, Lipshutz and Esakoff. It is astounding that a newbie Cr. is the one to do the homework and gain the knowledge to call the bluff and it is appalling that the others haven’t bothered to do so.
March 21, 2013 at 12:46 PM
While I agree with the sentiments expressed on this post I feel this side issue did not deserve a separate post outside its context covered by the previous post. I think GE Debates has succumbed to the same politicking as done by Cr Hyams. It did a Hyams on Hyams and detracted from the very significant achievement by the Council to get a ‘clear Council position’ on a critical issue in Glen Eira. I particular like the stand by Cr Delahunty that once a position is reached this Council as a Local Government level should speak in one voice and execute vigorously its stated position, particularly by its Mayor. I hope it can do that. It is important that a Council is recognised as a level of Government and like all Governments behaviors voters hate dissension in government ranks.
There is another issue that requires clarification and a clear Council position, that is the removal of level crossings on North Rd and Murrumbeena Rd. Each one will cost at least $100m to $150m for just the level crossings. From the Leader report it seems there is a dissension among Councillors as to what should happen at the North Rd level crossing. If the rail is to be lowered than it seems that the EE Gunn Reserve is to be used as a development site. That is clearly unacceptable. Cr Magee expressed his view that EE Gunn Reserve should not be lost to sporting clubs. Cr Hyams did not deny the idea of using EE Gunn Reserve as a development site. It seems that some decisions have already be made in the White Hall with some Councillors knowing more than others.
A clue to what is going on is the fact that the Business Development Group under Paul Burke has had discussion with the Ormond business community few years ago, while residents and sporting groups just the last six months. Essentially, if the rail is lowered and EE Gunn Reserve can be freed up then a huge development site becomes available to be built on. So, a Public Private Partnership project can be established for the State Government to minimise its costs and for Ormond to boom. Is that what the Council wants? Is that what the State wants? Again we see a move by administrators to divide and rule both the community and Councillors.
To clarify Councillors need to be asked and now is the time to press premier Naphtine on the issues of removal of training at Caulfield racecourse, North Rd level crossing, Ormond development and EE Gunn Reserve. Best when he is being interviewed by radio broadcasters.
March 21, 2013 at 5:15 PM
One of the duties of an efficient and trustworthy Mayor is to lead meetings with skils and impartiality. We see Hyams not doing that and he attacks councillors and show a clear partiality to his fellow mates Lipshultz and Esakoff. Hyams is a disgrace as a Mayor and a Councillor of Glen Eira City Council. He thinks he is a ‘know it all’ Mayor when he is not. He certainly should resign.