The snail’s pace of innovation, or simply change at Glen Eira, is exemplified by several items in the agenda for Tuesday night’s council meeting.
LOCAL LAWS COMMITTEE MINUTES
- The Tree Register is still a work in progress after years and years of talking
- Organised sport under section 326 still requires further ‘amendments’ – again 8 years down the track
- Alcohol Free Zones in Bentleigh. We must admit to loving the convoluted logic in this one.
The committee discussed the implementation of an alcohol free zone in the Bentleigh shopping strip area. It was considered that behaviour under the influence of alcohol was a matter for the Police, not for local government. No further action.
Readers will remember that this issue has been on the agenda for at least 3 years now. More to the point, Councils have the responsibility of introducing the alcohol free zone via their planning scheme as they did with the Caulfield Racecourse zone. Other councils (ie Kingston recently) seem to believe that public safety and security come first and have introduced such zones in the past year. Glen Eira continually passes the buck. Introducing such as zone is not a police matter – it is 100% in Council’s purview.
We also question the ‘no further action’ take. How a minority set of councillors can make such a recommendation prior to full discussion and debate in council chamber is unbelievable. Given that the practice in Glen Eira is simply to ‘accept’ all committee recommendations this will probably become ‘law’ but without full and open discussion. The community deserves far better. What are the real facts? What are the statistics? Where is the research? How many incidents have occurred in this area? Where is the transparency and accountability?
Finally, there is the following gem ironically listed under ‘other business’. We would have thought that the following item represents the core business of this committee!
Possible review of all of Council’s Local Law with public consultation.
Action – Corporate Counsel to draft report for consideration by full Council regarding a potential review of all of Council’s Local Laws. Report to include introduction of proposed new Local Laws during that process.
We can only presume that this is Glen Eira Speak for the ‘potential’ review of Meeting Procedures with the proviso that it’s a mere ‘maybe’ and that it shouldn’t stop all the other tinkering that is in the pipe line. It’s also worth remembering that the Councillor Questions policy was removed from the 2010 review of the Local Law with the ‘promise’ that the policy would be looked at again. Now three years later, it is still unsighted and rotting in the archives.
There is plenty more in this agenda which needs commenting upon. For this post we will simply conclude with this from the incamera discussions –
12.2 under s89(2)(d) “contractual” which relates to the GESAC construction contract dispute resolution
We again can only surmise that this means some form of payment to individuals/companies etc. It would certainly be welcomed if residents were informed as to whether the issue is now resolved and what the outcomes were!
Glen Eira Debates 
June 7, 2013 at 2:52 PM
Hmmmmm! Meeting after meeting and nothing is achieved. Probably worth noting that Lipshutz is chair and the new acolyte in Okotel is present as is that ubiquitous Hyams. Lobo is of course Lobo. Keeping things the same takes time, money and lots and lots of waffle.
June 7, 2013 at 3:15 PM
How many dunces does it take to run a council? Fair dinkum a ten year old coulda figured out what to do with sport and ovals in five minutes flat. Everyone with a permit gets the nod. Anyone without a permit gets shoved off if the ground is being used by those with a permit. Dead easy but not for this lot. What’s “organised” doesn’t matter then. Throw them frisbees if you’ve got a permit. If not piss off if the ground is booked.
June 7, 2013 at 3:22 PM
Macca – Hyams is the Mayor on toss of the coin who has been found on this forum to be rude and sarcastic in his response to the residents. However, he can attend any committee meetings. As for Okotel she is still learning the politics in the Council, she will soon see the light if she is a genuine lawyer. And Lobo – are not all politicians in Federal and State governments do that?
You need to be better educated.
June 7, 2013 at 6:39 PM
Having trouble following you here. Hyams scraped in by 5 votes to 4 thanks to Lobo. Last year he scraped in by the flukey toss of a coin. What is it that “all politicians in Federal and State government do” that Lobo does? Do you mean sell their souls? Make bargains to become Mayors?
June 8, 2013 at 8:17 AM
Am thinking you are giving Okotel too much leeway. Any one attending a Council Meeting, even for the first time, leaves wondering why this Council is so dysfunctional. It’s not a big leap to gather that if it’s dysfunctional when on public display, then it must be way more so when behind closed doors.
In the lead up to election, Okotel attended a number of Council Meetings – given her lawyerly status she should worked out the score. She has had six months and not achieved anything. There is no inkling of “seeing the light”, in fact the only inkling being shown is an awareness that to survive her term as Councillor relatively unscathed she needs to unquestioningly follow Esakoff’s directions.
June 7, 2013 at 4:06 PM
I am very, very concerned regarding the continuous disingenuous reporting of the minutes from the local laws committee and various other committees. Consistency should be across every single committee meeting. It is not. Whereas other minutes state openly the movers and seconders of motions no such practice is revealed in the most important committees such as the local law one.
The minutes from this particular committee are invariably clothed in obscurity if not deliberate ambiguity. I do not accept that this is accidental nor unintended. Error upon error is perpetrated and allowed to go down in history as the official record. This week’s effort is typical.
“Action – Corporate Counsel to draft report for consideration by full Council regarding a potential review of all of Council’s Local Laws. Report to include introduction of proposed new Local Laws during that process.” There is only one “Local Law”, not “Laws”. All that can be done is to amend the current local law and to enact new ones. Unlike other councils Glen Eira does not have Local Law number 1, Local Law number 2 and so forth. It is one document and one document alone. To therefore try and create the impression that it is possible to “review” only part of this law is I would think legally fraught.
It’s clear that the meeting procedures are the Pandora’s box that Lipshutz, Newton, Hyams and Esakoff want to keep firmly closed. For them notions of transparent and accountable government via notices of motion, dissent motions, and other integral elements are anathema. These ideas must be kept out of discussions and out of the public eye. The catch-22 in all of this of course is that any amendment to any local law must call for consultation and submissions. Even Newton can’t worm his way out of this. Whatever the corporate counsel is directed to produce the public must ultimately have its say. That say, I hope, would make it abundantly clear that Glen Eira’s meeting procedures do not belong in the 21st century and certainly do not substantiate any claim that this council operates according to the principles of transparent and open governance.
June 7, 2013 at 6:57 PM
I’m a little confused about the in camera item re the GESAC construction contract dispute resolution. For months prior and after GESAC opened a liquified damages claim of approx. $2m was touted as a reduction in the cost of construction. Then silence reigned after a Leader article mentioned a counter suit by the builders (Hansen Yunken). Now what was once considered safe for public consumption no longer is. Residents can only speculate on the outcome of the dispute resolution and the results are not looking good.
June 8, 2013 at 9:16 AM
Let’s get this straight –
. There is a long standing public safety issue with drunken behaviour and on street consumption of alcohol in Centre Road, Bentliegh
. Council, not the police, has the authority and responsibility to declare an alcohol free zone when alcohol related behaviour endangers the public’s safety or security.
. The police, while not having the authority to declare an alcohol free zone, are responsible for enforcing the alcohol free zone (it’s another weapon in their enforcement arsenal)
. Local Laws Advisory Committee terms of reference require them to review the Local Law and make appropriate amendment recommendations to Council who then considers and votes on the recommendation.
Yet what has happened is that the Local Laws Advisory Committee, which is comprised of lawyers (from Council’s Corporate Counsel and lawyer Councillors), has
. rather than making a recommendation to Council for discussion and decision, have breached the Local Law by making a decision (to do nothing) rather than the making a recommendation (to do nothing) to Council for decision.
. based that decision on the flawed argument that it is a police, not a Council, issue.
This speaks volumes for the Committee’s competency and the huge gap between Council’s words and actions on issues of public security.
June 8, 2013 at 1:05 PM
(MODERATORS: sentence deleted)
Is this not a good description of lawyers and we have three of them in this Council? Hopefully, the other Councillors will being asking serious of questions on the amendments proposed in the local law and guide themselves with the history behind the changes.
Layman – councillors wake up.
June 8, 2013 at 1:17 PM
Just for the record – this was our 10,000th comment on the site.
June 8, 2013 at 3:33 PM
D. Evans – Read the agenda for next Tuesday. Pathetic as usual. Yes, no mention of a mover and seconder. How could such minutes (that to of a Local Law Committee) be presented to the Council? It will be very interesting to see what the other councillors have to say.
Can any good governance ever come under the chairmanship of Lipshultz, Hyams or Esakoff? (MODERATORS: sentence deleted)
In the fourth quarter of 2012 there was a huge cry from the public that reached the Leader newspaper that residents were not allowed to play a casual game once in a while. The Frisbee group led by Lipshultz’s son is allowed to play on regular basis without permission from the Council and without obtaining cover for public liability insurance.
More people in the community need to keep eyes on the amendments to this local law committee that is composed of three lawyers. Look out that you all take part in the public consultation process.
June 10, 2013 at 9:09 PM
These lawyers have a different code to most people in our community!
oNLY NEEDED TOSEE THEIR BULLY-LIKE ACTIONS LAST YEAR IN CHAMBER DELIBERATLY STIFFLING FREE SPEECH.