Residents have every right to question why we are paying over $300,000 per annum for a bunch of councillors who continually fail to fulfil their legal and representative roles. Glen Eira councillors, as evidenced at tonight’s meeting are entirely superfluous to the running of council.
Tonight was an absolute talk fest. Phrases such as ‘transparency’ and ‘accountability’ were repeated ad nauseum – perhaps in the false belief that repeating such terms has some correlation to the lack of transparency and accountability that is the hallmark and most distinguishing feature of this council.
We will report in detail in the days ahead. However, the lowlights are:
- Not one single word about delegations and how councillors are literally unnecessary appendages in the entire process when all control and power is delegated to officers. Not one word about councillor ‘call-in’ and not one word about how nebulous and vague the criteria which govern decision making for the Delegated Planning Committee is.
- Public questions and the non-answers were again allowed to go through to the keeper with no councillor making any comment on any of the responses
- No questioning of the community consultation terms of reference, except for Pilling’s aside that it appears to be different to other committees’ terms of reference. Lobo waxed lyrical regarding the selection of the community reps, implying that he was opposed to re-advertising, and then voted to accept.
- An admission that the Open Space Review has not yet landed in the arms of councillors, but officers somehow manage to include some points from the review in the report on the ABC potential land sale.
Glen Eira Debates 
July 24, 2013 at 9:31 AM
At least Cr. Lobo had the balls to stand up and call a spade a spade. In his address last night, he clearly showed in many words that he was not a party to the decision making to re-advertise the position. The minutes were inside the Council papers that we picked from the tray placed in the public gallery. We read them again today. The motion in the minutes show that it was CARRIED and not CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. That is a record. We do not think that it mattered as rest of the Councillors showed otherwise. He informed the councillors that such actions can be perceived that we are not transperant and now descrimination by re-advertising the positions. Lobo asked if the council was looking out for a rocket scientist to fill up the position? He said that it was the right of every rate payer to apply for one of the 4 positions as it was a community consultation and not Environment & Sustainability where selection process is based on the expertise in the field.
July 24, 2013 at 11:02 AM
What absolute rubbish to praise Lobo for having “the balls to stand up and call a spade a spade” in speaking about the community reps when, come time for voting, he turns around and votes for the opposite of what he said.
July 24, 2013 at 9:37 AM
Councillor’s constant use of “open, transparent and accountable” to describe the actions of the administration and themselves is the equivalent of going to France and speaking English loudly to the French,
No matter how hard you try neither work because the basic precepts are missing – the residents won’t believe and the French won’t understand.
July 24, 2013 at 12:44 PM
Council runs on shibboleths and cliches. Councillors are programmed to regurgitate these mindless catch cries. The surprise is that Delahunty in so short a time has been duped into playing this game.
July 24, 2013 at 12:52 PM
Speaking against a motion then voting for it could be thought duplicitous.
July 25, 2013 at 4:46 PM
Is the word ‘duplicitous’ a right fit in your statement dear self opinionated Reprobate Robert Rabbit Roadway of a person that you appear to be. There are 4 vacant positions and the council is looking out for Smart arse like you use your frinking time for frinking good purposes and fix the gang that are on this community consultation committee.
Silly Billy Chilly Annonymous 1a – Be useful to the community and let us join together as talk is cheap as chips particularly when they pass their expiry dates. I will be forwarding my application as soon as the Council puts it up on the website. Will you join me?
Can any of the Mr. Get Smarts or Ms. 99 find out what the law says about a councillor who does not personally agree with a decision and is outnumbered during voting time, has to vote down or has a choice to join others as decision is inevitable. What difference will it make? I recall in previous years, Maggee seconded a motion and voted against it, so did Cheryl Forg and Penhalluriack. Please find and answer to this concern.
As a matter of information, I was told today, that good old Gatoff has applied to be a candidate of the Consultation committee knowing that the iron gates of Hyams and Esakoff will not allow Gatoff to get past them. Anyone wants to take a bet on Gatoff will be selected?
MODERATORS: We have allowed this comment through intact since we believe that the alluded to commentators are quite capable of answering for themselves.
July 25, 2013 at 5:27 PM
I would say that there are numerous reasons why a councillor should not forsake his view and vote with the majority simply because the outcome is inevitable.
First off, what does this say about individual integrity and conscience? All it achieves is the recording for history that a vote was unanimous. For a resident reading the minutes that would suggest that all councillors were of a like mind. A falsehood. The only useful outcome would be to administrators who can then say what a wonderful unified group we are.
Secondly, we are told repeatedly local government is a-political and councillors are not bound to vote on party lines. Speaking against a motion and then voting for it is voting on majority lines. This is even worse than party lines. Councillors are meant to provide reasons for their decisions. Because an individual disagrees with the majority there is no valid legal reason why he should then vote with the majority. This smacks not only of lunacy, but hypocrisy.
Thirdly, it betrays residents who may be in agreement with the opposition to the majority. Individuals are judged by their actions and not their words. The action should have been a vote that was consistent with the words. They weren’t and there have been other occasions where this has occurred I’m sure.
I can’t speak for Magee, Penhalluriack or Forge, but I do remember councillors comments cited here that seconding something is a way of getting it onto the chamber floor for debate. That at least isn’t committing oneself to a particular viewpoint or side as Lobo did on this occasion.
July 25, 2013 at 6:28 PM
Actually, Circus the law says nothing (although it should) about Councillors who do not agree with a decision and speaks against it but decides to vote with the others because he will be outnumbered. But hey the principles and standards of democratic governance say plenty as do the principles and ethics and community expectations of elected representatives. Voters want someone who will stand up and represent them – think about it – who wants to vote for someone who will only vote for the winning side. Such behaviour/attitude is disgraceful and becomes even more unpalatable when “what difference will it make?” is tacked on to it.
Naming past and current Councillors for unspecified/unsubstantiated instances of “doing the same” in an attempt to justify the current disgraceful performance is an even more deplorable argument.
If Councillor Lobo felt so strongly about his opinion, and had the “balls” a previous poster claimed he had, why didn’t he vote in accordance with his convictions and call for a division so that the voting (who voted which way) was recorded in the minutes.
July 25, 2013 at 6:32 PM
Hey Circus – got a question.
Until the votes were counted how did the Councillor in question know the vote was going to go against him? Discussed and decided in the pre-Council Meeting perhaps?
July 25, 2013 at 6:44 PM
It would seem that councillors should consider seriously all arguments on merits, take into account the effect on all wards never his or her own views and work towards the benefit of the whole society.
One is left wondering whoever really believes that dwellings such as thoise built in Dudley Street and to be built in Dandenong Road, not much larger than a cubby house with only reflected light (and therefore no opportunity for real air) could be of benefit to even a fowl or other aninmal let alone a fellow human being. If anyone has any ideas to enlighten me please do so.
Then why is approval given for single beds to be crowded in over a persons ankle and foot area with study tables… skinned feet and shins are very possible. Can anyone suggest any good points in these new “standards’
One would think that our forebares advocated for better standards than this a century ago as overcrowding and stale air caused many health problems and even fatalities. Any comments of the positive sides of these new changes?
July 26, 2013 at 11:02 AM
Dudley/Gibson Sts epitomise what can happen when there are no enforceable constraints on Council or VCAT when making planning decisions. Overlooking, overshadowing, minimal setbacks, failure to fit within Rescode-mandated building envelope, lack of articulation, all within a minimal-change area.
July 28, 2013 at 4:35 PM
D. Evans – You appear to have views on every bloody issue. Instead of continuously criticising on this forum, why don’t you consider applying for the re-advertised positions as Community Consultant Representative? Are you scared of the Councillors and the Mayor? Show us your skills rather than be a Clown in the interesting circus. If not, shut your trap for good and perhaps suck eggs as we say in Australia. Please request Smart Alec and all those who say that the Council is not transparent. Go and make a difference as talk is cheap. Now is the time to apply for one of the 4 positions.
July 28, 2013 at 7:40 PM
You really should stick to addressing my arguments rather than the man Mr Manager of Circuses. You have not challenged a single point I made. I repeat for your benefit –
1. speaking against and then voting for shows either plain stupidity or a lack of integrity
2. It accomplishes nothing more than a false historical record that favours a council already suspect on so many issues of governance and transparency.
If you are so keen on being a community rep then I would think that you should put your hand up quick smart before they select their preferred candidates. Perhaps with your viewpoints you might have the inside running?
July 29, 2013 at 12:44 PM
Following up on Circus Clown’s intemperate comments, I note that there is no advertisement for Community Consultation Committee community members in the most recent Glen Eira Leader, and the advertisement on Council’s web site states that applications close on 13 June 2013. The “agreed criteria” haven’t been published and I have my doubts they ever will be. Its clear that informed critics of current Council and councillor behaviour are not welcome.