Below is the ‘debate’ on accepting the various committees’ ‘minutes’ and their recommendations. We’ve focused on the Community Consultation ones.
Delahunty moved to accept and seconded by Lobo.
DELAHUNTY: stated that the consultation committee ‘sets the standards‘ for consultation and seeks to ‘widen, broaden, deepen’ and make consultation ‘appropriate’ so it’s an ‘important committee’. Related what had been discussed: terms of reference; and EOI from people wanting to be community reps as well as reviewing engagement strategy. Said that one submission from a resident was ‘very helpful’ (on disability). Vouched that this ‘was a true and accurate’ record of what happened at the meeting.
LOBO: said that 4 EOIs had been received by council. One was from a ‘very senior’ and ‘experienced resident’ and was in the ‘format’ that they were asked to submit. Went on to say that there were no ‘qualifications’ or ‘requisites’ given to people. Claimed that the committee decision was to ‘hold the applications on ice’ until advertising again. Said that in his view it’s the ‘right of ratepayers’ to both ‘represent the community’ and ‘contribute to a council that they finance and pay our salaries’. People who apply are community minded and spend ‘their own time’ in the effort to ‘make a difference’. Re-advertising creates the impressions that ‘we are not a transparent council’. Community reps for this committee is different to the environmental one where some professional expertise is required. Quoted Ghandi about ‘greatness’ and no correlation to ‘education’ and that these applications should be ‘viewed’ in the same way. “Barriers’ to ‘perceived transparency’ have to be removed. Asked the rhetorical question as to precisely what they’re looking for – ‘a rocket scientist’, ‘psychiatrist’ or ‘a doctor of philosophy’. The Local Government Act compels councillors to act ‘impartially’ in carrying out their duties. Said that these would be ‘just words’ if not acted upon.
OKOTEL: spoke about the Violence against Women day and how council supports two groups in this area.
HYAMS: told the gallery that with this motion it’s not just about receiving and noting the minutes but also ‘adopting the recommendations’ so if councillors agree with Lobo that council shouldn’t be readvertising for community reps ‘they would vote against this motion’. Said that he didn’t think that readvertising was a ‘slight’ on those who applied and that they had hoped to ‘attract a slightly broader range of applicants’. Readvertising was ‘just a way of trying to achieve a broader range’ and doesn’t mean that those who already submitted won’t be selected. Went on to discuss the grants committee.
DELAHUNTY: endorsed Hyams comments on the Legal Service then went on to say that the minutes ‘tell the story’ of how council is ‘spending your money’ and they also tell the story about issues being discussed and ‘values and how we impart those values onto things we deem to be important’. People need to ‘keep track of these minutes’ and ensure that councillors are ‘held to account’ and ‘not discussing ourselves’ in these meetings and ‘not having a go at each other’. All that’s happening is ‘we’re discussing the issues and doing what local government’ should be doing. Finished by saying that some of the things she isn’t proud of but others she is and urged people to read the minutes.
MOTION PUT AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (NOTE: Lipshutz and Magee were absent)
Glen Eira Debates 
July 24, 2013 at 5:43 PM
Thank you for putting this up. I am literally dumbfounded by many of these councillor statements. How Lobo could vote for something that he opposed (rightly) is remarkable. More remarkable are Delahunty’s pithy little statements about values and accuracy of minutes. If the community consultation committee is so essential then council needs to explain why it has been left in abeyance for so many months and why this committee was not given any role in major consultations. I remember that they came in on the tail end of the community plan, when decisions had in probability already been made by others. This committee doesn’t set ‘standards’. The word has no meaning in Glen Eira.
Hyams explanation for what can only be the rejection of the 4 submissions is literally insulting and laughable. Broader representation means people who are malleable, ignorant, and quite prepared to do as they are told. These kinds of people make the perfect community representatives in a council that has no respect and definitely no intention of improving its appalling record on transparency and accountability.
July 24, 2013 at 9:56 PM
Yup, Glen Eira. No criteria for selection so no way you can complain that decision to reject ya was wrong. Wonder if Newton got the idea from the fed bean counters or from the state ones.
July 25, 2013 at 11:20 AM
Criteria and policies don’t mean much as a general rule. Having said that, it is always better to have neither. That provides the scope to do anything and select anyone without having to account for those decisions. Glen Eira has developed this into an art form. There is no published policy available on many planning decisions. Nothing exists on sport and now Lobo admits that there’s nothing on consultation representatives. Delahunty’s chatter about standards then is mere grandstanding. Standards do not issue from non existent criteria and policies. When many important tasks are done on a case by case basis as in Glen Eira there cannot be any standard and definitely no transparency or consistency. That’s what standards are for – but any standard would bind and restrict power. From Newton’s and the gang’s viewpoint that must not be allowed to happen.
July 24, 2013 at 11:04 PM
Please, please, please everyone watch the Kingston video of their council meetings. I’ve only got into the first 25 minutes and it’s an eye-opener. Physically totally casual not like in GE. Councillors sit around a big table and they have village committees and their presidents or others making their reports on all sorts of things. Even petitions get booted up to the ceo for action and on planning one councillor said that she wants people to speak with strategic planning and to give their views on their streets and the new zones. The first bit of a planning application also had an objector being allowed to speak to the whole council. I haven’t got any further than this but am impressed with how much opportunity residents are given to have a say and how councillors and the mayor treats them. All so very different to the way that this council does with the heavies sitting like gods above councillors and nobody can say a word from the audience. It stinks.
July 25, 2013 at 7:22 AM
Invariably, just about any comparison of Glen Eira Council to another Council makes the other Council look good. It goes beyond attending the other Council’s planning reform zones community consultations, attending (or watching the video of) Council Meetings, comparing minutes, comparing policies (eg. tree protection, organized sport, heritage preservation) – it’s even as astoundingly simple as walking in the door of the municipal offices.
Glen Eira Council continually tells us how good it is – my long professional experience tells me that anyone who tells you how good they are usually isnt.
July 25, 2013 at 10:36 PM
Reading through above comments, it is clear that Delahunty is being pressurised to join the black side of the council. Hyams/Esakoff are trying to mesmerising Delahunty. As the Chair she should have put her foot down and given proper explanation to the gallery or better still convince her colleagues that it would be an insult to the intelligence of the 4 candidates who have applied for the positions. The whole thing is like treating the candidates as Kunta Kinte.