Item 9.5 – Meeting procedures
This involved 3 motions moved by Delahunty. The first was on the Notice of Motion and that the Local Laws Committee draft some ‘appropriate guidelines’ for its operation. Pilling seconded.
DELAHUNTY: started off by asking whoever provided the officer’s report how long it took them to compile and draft the report and if anything similar to the report had come to council previously. Newton responded that not to a motion like this. Delahunty then said that Notice of Motion (NOM) is a ‘basic function of every other council but not Glen Eira’. NOM gives councillors the right to ‘do what we were elected to do’ as in other councils and that the report proves that ‘we’re grossly out of step’ with everyone else in terms of ‘best practice’. Said that when she publicised this other councillors from other councils couldn’t believe that Glen Eira didn’t have a NOM and that the meeting procedures at Glen Eira ‘were a joke’ according to an ex Glen Eira councillor. Read out the ‘purpose’ of council and councillors from the Local Government Act which emphasises providing a ‘system’ for good governance. This shouldn’t be different for someone who lives across a road in another municipality – all councils and residents should have the same rights. Said that the officer’s report ‘pretty much makes the case’ as to why a NOM is ‘needed’ but that there will be opposing argument put that will be ‘confusingly contradictory’. She went on to outline the likely arguments that would be put up – (1) there’s no difference between NOM and calling for a report. Delahunty said that she ‘agrees’ with this ‘in part’ but that requests for report ‘take a lot longer’ , waste time and money on the part of officers. The report on NOM took time and ‘all the information is freely available’. Said she didn’t go into this topic without knowing the bottom line or something about it so there was no need to ‘waste officer’s time’ in compiling reports. Said the report and its ‘colours’ were nice but there was nothing in it that an ‘informed person couldn’t figure out for themselves’. Spoke about councillors ability to do some research themselves. Another argument that was likely to crop up was that decisions should only occur when ‘the information is present’. Residents expect councillors to be ‘informed’ and make their own decisions. Answering this argument Delahunty says ‘do your job’. Calling for a report ‘wastes money’. (2) another argument would be that requests for reports provide greater detail and information. Countering this argument Delahunty said she’s not arguing against removing the request for report because if councillors want more information then that’s the avenue to get it. Said she realised that what she’s proposing ‘is a shake up for the city of Glen Eira’ but not for every other council in the state.
At this point Delahunty asked for a 3 minute time extension. Lobo seconded. LIPSHUTZ, ESAKOFF AND HYAMS VOTED AGAINST. Motion carried.
Argument 3 that councillors would likely raise is that NOM would ‘drag on’ and make meetings interminable and that NOM would be used ‘as a nuisance tool’. Said that this argument was ‘so condescending’ that it wasn’t even worth ‘refuting’. Said that ‘this is our job’ and that NOM was an ‘avenue’ for councillors to represent community views. Repeated that systems should ‘be consistent across municipalities’. Claimed that you can’t have the argument that NOM is the same as Request for Report and then turn around and argue that the former is a waste of time if they are the same. And if they were the same then ‘we would already have this nuisance like behaviour’. Said that the ‘arguments for are very clear’ and that the opposing arguments are ‘contradictory and condescending’. ‘It is only a progressive councillor group that can change this’. Thought that the motion was very important for the municipality and that the public wouldn’t see much of a change except that less of their money would be wasted on officer reports.
PILLING: said that it has come up before and that now it’s a ‘sign of maturity’ by council that it’s come up again and that the time is right to fall into line with other councils. Thought that both NOM and requests for reports can sit ‘side by side’ and that it does ‘require responsibility by councillors’. Shouldn’t ‘pre-judge’ what councillors might or could do with NOM. Councillors need ‘all the available tools’ and as representatives of the community they have the ‘responsibility’ of using these tools ‘wisely’. Time and wasting money was an ‘issue’ but also what’s important was having ‘all the tools’. didn’t think that ‘the world’s going to fall in if we do have NOM’. Rather councillors would have ‘more options’ and they can ‘pick and choose’ which option is best. This can ‘only add to our governance duties’.
LIPSHUTZ: objected to the argument that if you’re speaking against the motion that you’re ‘condescending’ and ‘not progressive’. Just because every other council does this doesn’t mean that Glen Eira has to follow ‘if we’re getting it right’. Said that there are other areas where Glen Eira isn’t following others and they are still getting it right. ‘They should be following us and not the other way around’. Because others are different doesn’t ‘mean that they are right’ and it doesn’t mean that they’re following ‘best practice’. Said that when he first got on council he was in favour of NOM but then he realised how council works and that making ‘important decisions’ was vital. Claimed that ‘I live in the real world not the fancy world’ and that Delahunty’s claim that the public expects councillors to be ‘informed’ people ‘is rubbish’. Councillors are elected because they are ‘aligned with a particular area’ such as Greens, Labor. Said that he’s seen councillors showing up who haven’t read a thing on the agenda or reports and then voting. ‘That’s simply the real world’. As councillors they have to make important decisions and represent people ‘as we see fit’ and that when he wants to represent people at council he ‘wants to know what the facts are’. Gave the example from last council where a mulch shed was closed ‘simply because one councillor did his own research’ from the internet and then ‘convinced a whole lot of councillors’ that the facility should be closed. ‘That was a wrong decision and council reversed it’s decision’. Since everyone lives ‘in the real world’ it could come down ‘to factions’ and raising a whole lot of things which has got nothing to do with a council report. Currently ‘the system works’ and people have got the chance to raise something by asking for a report.
Lipshutz asked for a 3 minute extension. Delahunty seconded. Carried unanimously.
Claimed that ‘no councillor here is denied the right’ to raise any issue but they ask for a report so they get ‘informed decisions’. They can then reject or challenge the report. This way it’s an informed decision rather than an ‘ad hoc decision’. Said that other councils ‘can’t do that’ and that the time it takes officers is part of their job. Said that in every level of government no-one goes into parliament and ‘off the top of their back’ make ‘a motion and seek to change the law’. Referred to Kevin Rudd asking for ‘multiple reports that he probably never read’ but he ‘asked for reports’. Everyone asks for reports so that they can make ‘important decisions’. Admitted that this does cause delay and gave the example of Sounness asking for a report on Caulfield Park and that they will get that report. Then with the report the information is there and it is ‘totally transparent’. If it’s urgent then there’s ‘urgent business’. Summed up that the issue isn’t about time or money or being progressive but all about councillors ‘being informed’. ‘If every other council does it it’s not the reason why we should do it’. Delahunty talks about people living across the street and they should all be the same. Said that planning law is not the same and that Port Phillip is different to Glen Eira – ‘we are out there on our own’ and that ‘other councils want to emulate us’. Said he couldn’t think of ‘one thing’ that in his time on council they didn’t do ‘properly’ with request for report and he couldn’t see ‘one thing’ that a NOM would solve.
ESAKOFF: said that not only did she take offence at being called ‘condescending’ but took offence at many of the other comments. They are elected but aren’t ‘experts’ in ‘any one thing’ and that’s why they have CEO’s and other senior administrators. They’re there because councillors can’t do their jobs and that’s what they are there for. Glen Eira has got requests for reports and no other council has this. ‘we don’t have notices of motion. We have a superior product’. They can ask for a report and get it back that details the ‘pros, the cons and everything else in between’. ‘It is transparent completely’ and councillors aren’t making ‘decisions on the run’. Councillors don’t ‘have the time to become a director in any one department’ since councillors have other lives like work, parenthood, running households, jobs, and ‘we need to sleep at night’, ‘we’re not Kevin Rudd’. Councillors don’t work this way. They get reports from officers upon which ‘informed decisions’ are made. ‘That is best practice’ and she didn’t think that ‘what other councils do is best practice’. She’s spoken to councillors from other councils and ‘many do not like’ the NOM because they see it as ‘abuse’ and a ‘tool that is used for the wrong reason’ not always but sometimes. ‘It is used as a political wedging tool’ and is ‘unfair’ because it means that councillors ‘are forced to make a decision on the run and without any proper information’. Repeated that she ‘resents’ a ‘lot of the things that have been said’ and that it is a ‘disgrace’ to have been ‘brought to this table’.
LOBO: said that councillors ‘should try to work together as a team’ and that ‘good councils talk and explains their point of view’ and puts on a ‘good show for the public’. ‘we are on a stage’ where councillors ‘should know our script’. There shouldn’t be any ‘holes’ in this script. Said that council should also try to be ‘innovative’ and try to be ‘different from other councils’ but also seeing ‘what is good’ in these councils. Concluded that balance is needed and that councillors have to show that ‘we are united’ on various issues.
SOUNNESS: said he took Esakoff’s point that he’s not an ‘expert’ and that’s why he appreciates officer’s reports. Was ‘very pleased’ with the way the requests for reports processes have worked and been ‘satisfied with the quality of the result’. ‘It’s a good system’ and since he’s never been on any other council he ‘can’t compare’. He had spoken to other councillors and in the end it was still ‘council that made the decisions’. Thought that how other councils did their notice of motion ‘was a bit much’. Noted that there was the option of laying the motion on the table because councillors felt that they didn’t know enough and wanted more information. Agreed with Lobo that council was a ‘stage’ and that people get ‘stagefright’ and might rush a decision although he didn’t know anything about the mulch issue. He would be ‘comfortable’ with both NOM and requests for report but would prefer the requests for report since ‘the product at the end of the day is much better’. Went on to say that he did question how he could speak to something if it wasn’t on the agenda but that this was really a ‘very small element’. All this was ‘inconsequential’ because the really important policy decisions like the Health Plan come through an officers’ report. Said he couldn’t see that NOM would be used that often but that didn’t mean that ‘it wasn’t a good tool’. But tool’s ‘need to be designed to serve a purpose’ and he wasn’t sure ‘what that purpose is’. Thought it important that councillors respect officers and that the reverse should also be true.
Asked for a 30 second time extension. Seconded by Magee. Motion passed unanimously.
Wasn’t sure if NOM ‘was a solution’.
MAGEE: when he became a councillor knew nothing about NOM. Thought that requests for reports worked pretty well but it ‘often’ doesn’t contain the information ‘that you wanted’ but it does have information that is ‘right’. Thought that the NOM was therefore one way of ‘circumventing’ the ‘disappointment of an officer’s report’. But on further reflection he realised that a notice of motion wasn’t something that just appeared. It had to be given notice of and therefore there still was the opportunity for ‘other councillors’ to knock it on the head if they thought the NOM ‘was silly’. And officers can also come back and ask ‘have you thought of this’ and if councillor wants more information then it can be turned into a request for a report. So ‘just because someone raises a notice of motion doesn’t mean it’s going to get through’. Said that he didn’t think he would ever use a NOM because he likes to reflect on things before he sends off emails to councillors or officers. But the NOM option is a tool and can be ‘used as well as’ a request for report he doesn’t see anything wrong with this. Said that previously he had supported Pilling’s original attempt but had come to council tonight thinking he would vote against it but has changed his mind because he now thinks that it can’t do any harm. If the NOM is ridiculous then it won’t get through and it does give people time ‘to comment’.
OKOTEL: asked whether there could be a ‘dual system’ since there was nothing in the report about this.
NEWTON: said that there could be both on the same agenda if councillors decided that after a notice of motion they wanted further information which would lead to a request for a report.
OKOTEL: asked that if there was this dual system what ‘would be the benefits’ of having NOM
NEWTON: said it was up to council to decide on meeting procedures and not up to officers to provide ‘opinions’. Council could institute ‘one or the other or both’.
OKOTEL – did not speak further at this point.
HYAMS: concurred with Esakoff and Lipshutz about Delahunty’s comments and thought that ‘we should stick to the arguments’. There are arguments for and against NOM and there shouldn’t be ‘derogatory comments’ made. Said that Glen Eira is ‘the only council’ that has requests for reports and that’s why there is no NOM and did think that ‘the current system is superior’. When first elected claimed he was in favour of NOM until a fellow councillor of the time sent him a fax of a proposed NOM and it was ‘very derogatory and attacking’ and it implied that ‘this is what I could do’ and inform the papers that the NOM would be moved. As a result of the media coverage it wouldn’t then matter if the NOM got passed or not since it had already made it ‘out there’. Went on to say that Delahunty was ‘lucky’ because Glen Eira was her first and only council and there are instances where ‘people’s motives aren’t always pure’. Then asked the rhetorical question ‘what is it we can’t do under the current system?’ Claimed that councillors can ‘get anything we want on the agenda’ by just putting in a request for a report or in urgent business. In contrast to Delahunty who said that her conversations with councillors from elsewhere was surprise that Glen Eira didn’t have a NOM, he had spoken with councillors who said ‘how lucky’ Glen Eira was that they didn’t have this process ‘because of all the shenanigans they put up with at their councils’. Gave the example of the East West Link where a request for a report came back with ‘good information’. Said that if it was only a NOM without the ‘background information’ he ‘would have probably voted against’. Didn’t think that a request for a report would have come out of such a NOM because the matter was pretty much ‘cut and dried’ in that ‘either you thought it was’ a good idea or ‘you don’t’. ‘We don’t just want to make decisions here, we want to make informed decisions’. It may be fine to think that councillors would do their own research but some councillors don’t even read the agendas so expecting them to do their own research is ‘asking a bit much’.
Asked for a 3 minute extension. Delahunty seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
Hyams went on to give 2 examples of councils with NOM who got things wrong and wished that ‘they hadn’t’ got it wrong in the first place. Cited Marrackville council who passed a motion about boycotting Israeli products only to discover that their computer systems contained Israeli made parts. To change would cost millions so then they ‘voted against it’ and he thought that it cost the Green’s candidate a seat in parliament because it ‘made council look so bad’. Went on to give another example of Yarra City banning restauants from using outside heaters on environmental grounds. Said they banned them and then discovered it was ‘actually causing more carbon emissions to wash all the blankets’ that they wanted restaurants to use. They then went back to heaters and ‘probably wished they hadn’t done that either’. Argued that ‘sometimes we don’t know what we don’t know’ so there’s the chance that an officer’s report wouldn’t be called upon and that the NOM would stand. They are all elected as a council so council determines what goes on the agenda and not ‘one or two councillors’ and that’s ‘democracy’ whilst NOM ‘doesn’t conform with my idea of democracy’ which is that ‘the group makes the decisions’. ‘I don’t think it’s broken so I don’t think it needs to be fixed’. ‘The current system we have is better than anyone else’.
OKOTEL: wanted to ‘echo’ the thoughts of Hyams, Esakoff and Lipshutz. When elected she saw herself as a community person but ‘never claimed to be an expert’ and can’t be. She hasn’t ‘studied every area that council is involved in’ and ‘very much’ relies on information from officers. Without officer information she did think that there was a ‘danger’ about making wrong decisions. Said that in the case of NOM and someone didn’t vote but abstained because they didn’t know enough then that ‘vote would be taken as a vote against’. Thought that it was ‘so important’ that ‘we do have the information to support our positions’. Referred to the East West link report and that even though the media had covered this widely it was still good to ‘have information provided’ by officers so that councillors ‘could sit down in your own time’ and discuss with others and therefore make an ‘informed decision’ rather than ‘on the night’ and ‘under pressure’ to make a right decision. Councillors take ‘seriously’ the responsibility of ‘making the best decisions for our community’. Couldn’t see ‘any benefit’ in a NOM that would assist this obligation. Didn’t think that she could make good decisions without information.
Okotel asked for a minute’s extension. Magee seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
Referred to Hyam’s points about council’s making wrong decisions and then rectifying those decisions these council’s ‘have expended ratepayer’s money’. Would hate to see this as an outcome in Glen Eira even though the motives behind any NOM are ‘well intended’.
DELAHUNTY: started by saying that she ‘mis-spoke’ in that she wasn’t suggesting that people were condescending but that the arguments were. In the past perhaps people abused NOM and in other council’s but didn’t think that they should be making procedural laws on the basis of the past and what might happen. Also said that she didn’t see how comments on Rudd were relevant and that she was intent on ‘playing the ball and not the man’. Agreed with Pilling that NOM is about ‘all available tools’ and that councillors would use the ‘appropriate’ tools. Said that her view was that NOM should be delivered to councillors at least ‘5 working days’ beforehand so they have got the chance to think about it, discuss with others and if included for the next council agenda then there would be the opportunity top discuss at a councillor’s assembly. So it’s not decision making on the run. ‘This is actually more time than a request for a report’ is given to councillors to decide on. Joked that she was ‘actually kicking myself’ that in her foreshadowing of the opposing arguments she forgot the one about ‘if it ain’t broke why fix it’. Does think that it’s about ‘conservative versus progressive values’ but doesn’t think there’s anything wrong with people calling themselves either or thinking along these lines. Said that ‘if it ain’t broke why fix it’ is a conservative catchcry and ‘doesn’t make sense’.’Why would we wait until something is broken before we fix it’. Went on to give an analogy with her roof and the water damage this was causing. Tiles aren’t ‘broken’ but they need fixing in order to fix the follow on problems of water damage.
Delahunty asked for 2 minute extension. Seconded by Lobo. Motion voted against by Lipshutz. Motion carried.
Council’s meeting procedures are ‘broken’ in a subjective way because they are ‘inconsistent’ with others, and ‘potentially wastes money’. ‘Our system is out of step’ and needs fixing and ‘won’t be the end of the world’. didn’t think there would be ‘nuisance behaviour’ because ‘I trust people around this table’ despite different values.
MOTION PUT AND DEFEATED
Glen Eira Debates 
September 4, 2013 at 1:38 PM
There’s so much here that is factually and logically wrong I honestly don’t know where to start. Possibly Lobo’s view that councillors are nothing more than actors and that council meetings are their stage is the best description (and certainly the most honest) that has ever been put forward. This report confirms that councillors by and large are given prepared scripts that they are expected to follow. Most of the claims presented by Lipshutz and his friends come straight out of the Newton report from years ago when the question of notice of motion first came up. The script, and the values have not changed. That is a great loss to the community. A greater loss is the naivety if not stupidity of Sounness. When ordinary residents without any council experience can see the value of notices of motion Sounness’ blindness is unforgiveable. You don’t have to be an Einstein to realise that there must be something quite valuable in a process if every other council has decided to adopt it and they somehow manage to survive. Glen Eira has battled to survive through numerous investigations and inner turmoil. Perhaps the reason for such inner conflict has more to do with the lack of proper process and governance than the arrogance of supporting the view that everyone else is wrong and this council is always right.
It’s nearly a year since Okotel and Sounness were elected. The former’s ignorance on meeting procedures is unforgiveable. Delahunty rightly pointed out that there is no such thing as decisions on the run. Notices of motion are written, endorsed and entered into a register for the next council meetings. That could be weeks away. Councillors then have sufficient time to reflect and consider. They may even decide to do their own research! There would of course be at least 2 briefing sessions where officers could weave their magic and determine the outcome as they desire. Trying to portray notices of motions as “ad – hoc” decision making is mischievous in the extreme and plainly inaccurate. But it serves the purpose for those committed to maintaining the status quo at the expense of good governance.
I most resent the spurious and outrageous claim that with requests for reports the process is “transparent”. Nothing in my view could be further from the truth. Officer reports on important issues are frequently biased, incomplete and certainly very little information is provided on costings and outcomes. Their purpose is to fulfill any legal requirement, to dupe most councillors and to hide the real nuts and bolts of the issue. The entire purpose of requests for reports as far as I can make out is to ensure that officers and not councillors remain at the wheel of the sinking ship.
Delahunty does deserve praise for her efforts and I thank her for at least bringing to the fore again an issue that will not go away and makes very clear to all how good government is an impossibility in this council until certain individuals are cut adrift.
September 4, 2013 at 4:43 PM
Good points Mr Evans. What really grabs my fancy is the confessional nature of much that happened. Councillors freely admit that they haven’t got a mind of their own. This implies that informed decisions are impossible without the handmaiden of Newton’s highly paid workforce. The best is the Magee confession that on asking for requests for reports, what comes back doesn’t even answer the question. Truly amazing and this is called the always right council.
September 4, 2013 at 3:25 PM
My conclusion is simply that our Representatives leave a lot to be desired.
September 4, 2013 at 4:12 PM
“Gave the example from last council where a mulch shed was closed ‘simply because one councillor did his own research’ from the internet and then ‘convinced a whole lot of councillors’ that the facility should be closed”
Ho hum no need to worry about the facts on this one for Lipshutz. Penhalluriack like vcat is the convenient scapegoat. All his fault. Lipshutz has got a rotten memory. Penhalluriack tried for months to have council look at the potential dangers. Even went to the Audit committee on which Lipshutz sits. They did bugger all until eventually forced to get professionals in. Their findings were that there was a risk and suggested many changes to protect people. Not mentioned of course by Lipshutz. Still, Frank didn’t twist anyone’s arm. His evidence that he bothered to research himself must have been pretty good to get everyone else apart from Hyams and Lipshutz to vote with him. That’s democracy I reckon. Biggest joke is that Frank couldn’t even get the records from Newton on this one under foi so who knows what the real truth is? Yeah sure, councillors then changed their mind to cover up for Newton and the public outcry after a fabulous media campaign. If Lipshutz wants all the facts then he’d better ask why this place was alllowed to run for years without putting in the conditions for its use! Even now they’re not operating properly and could still be a risk to people.
Lipshutz should be the last person to talk about reading stuff before council meetings. He’s such a busy man that he wouldn’t bother cos he already knows everything that’s been programmed into him by you know who.
September 4, 2013 at 5:44 PM
Delahunty appears to be out of step with most of the Councillors. She may go the same way as Frank P. Rocking the boat doesn’t work in these parts. You get no where by talking down to people and openly criticising their values and efforts. The most successful people in public life manage to get along without being rude or offending other councillors. This behaviour may get her name in the paper but it won’t win votes.
September 4, 2013 at 6:17 PM
Faced with the choice of voting for Lipshutz, Sounness or Delahunty, I know who would receive my vote – Delahunty. Your criteria of talking people down must include the likes of Lipshutz and Hyams wouldn’t you say? They have become experts in denigrating other councillors and members of the public and engaging in a fair amount of self promotion.
September 4, 2013 at 6:33 PM
It’s time to debunk the myths that are continually promulgated by this council and its subset of conservative councillors. The argument put forward has been that Glen Eira is unique in that it contains the Request for a Report ‘tool’ in its meeting procedures and that they are therefore superior to other councils which do not have this mechanism. Unfortunately, this version of reality only represents a quarter of the truth. Other councils have clauses in their meeting procedures which enables them to do what they like if there is a resolution for some action which is NOT COVERED by the Meeting Procedures. Kingston in fact has very recently taken advantage of such a clause and passed a Notice of Motion that INCLUDED A REQUEST FOR A REPORT. There are also numerous other councils that follow this process and Requests for a Report are common features of their council meetings and resolutions. We provide the following as ‘evidence’ of our claims. The Kingston motion appeared in the minutes of 22nd July 2013. It reads:
13. Notices of Motion
13.1 Notice of Motion No. 26/2013 – Cr Eden and Cr Bearsley – Request for Report
re: Budget Discussion for 2014/15
Moved: Cr Eden Seconded: Cr Bearsley
Cr Staikos left the Council Chamber at 9.04pm.
Cr Staikos returned to the Council Chamber at 9.06pm.
That Council officers prepare a comprehensive report by the end of November 2013, which
includes but is not limited to:
1. Feedback from consultation with the broader community on their views on council
rates (including differential rates, rate increases and budget spending).
2. A summary of submissions to the budget from the last four years and any impact
the submissions had on previous budgets.
3. A discussion about the operational impacts and other implications of introducing
differential rates within Kingston for retirement villages particularly in respect to the
recent ministerial review on rating practices.
4. Research on why other councils throughout Victoria have used differential rates for
retirement villages and their reasons for settling their level of discount.
5. Analysis of Council’s current rate revenue broken down by categories e.g. by
suburb, type (commercial, residential) and analysis of budget spending/uptake of
council services by category.
6. Discussion on ways Council could acknowledge the contribution of entities, such as
body corporates, who maintain privately owned public space e.g. Rate rebate to
individuals, council contribution to body corporate, eligibility for grants.
7. Possible impact of Council introducing a process where public submissions are
encouraged at the beginning of the budget process as well as on the release of the
draft budget.
8. The rating strategies adopted by Kingston Council over the past year, in respect to
such factors as early payment rebates, pensioner discounts, etc.
9. Any other information that officers deem relevant to the rates discussion.
For good measure here’s another example from Moorabool –
Click to access MSC%20Minutes%20150611WEB.pdf
Request for report on access from Midland Highway into Elaine
Township
Resolution:
Crs. Sullivan/Comrie
That the Council officers provide a report on access from Midland
Highway into Elaine Township.
CARRIED
September 4, 2013 at 11:21 PM
A wonderful motion by Kingston. Pigs might fly before Newton and the gang let people question the budget and get their views in before priorities are set. I would love to know why rates keep going up and up and up and where all the money is going.
September 4, 2013 at 11:30 PM
Here’s the Leader’s version of events on the Code of Conduct. We will present the full debacle in all its gory details in the days ahead –
Glen Eira councillors reject outright ban on sensitive correspondence release
Andrea Kellett
September 04, 2013 3:46PM
GLEN Eira councillors have backed away from a self-imposed ban on sharing sensitive and potentially embarrassing council correspondence with the public.
Councillors last night debated an addition to their Code of Conduct that would have prevented them from sharing council correspondence or internal working documents if it did not benefit the council.
They instead adopted a version allowing councillors to disclose correspondence to or from the council if its release was in the public interest.
The councillor group must also, for the first time, be notified.
A fired up Cr Oscar Lobo said the original proposal was “a soft copy of dictatorship” put forward after an MP’s letter about a developer was released.
That letter ended up in the media.
Cr Mary Delahunty tried, and failed, to have the clause scrapped, telling the chamber it was reactionary, conservative and not in the public interest.
“Where are our priorities?” she said.
Mayor Jamie Hyams denied suggestions from the Leader that the council was considering a gag.
He said the intent was to “clarify a grey area in the code of conduct” and told the chamber that parties dealing with Glen Eira Council needed confidence or they may not write to the council.
“I think we are far better off if people have that confidence in us,” he said.
Greens Cr Neil Pilling put forward the final, agreed, version, saying he saw it as a “no surprises policy”.
All councils must, by law, review their councillor codes of conduct within 12 months of an election.
Neither Bayside nor Port Phillip councils’ codes of conduct specify what councillors can or cannot do with council correspondence.
September 4, 2013 at 11:45 PM
Anon 4 – I bet my last 5 cents in the pocket that this posting is of yours – Hyams and that is 95% sure. The balance 5% could be Lipshultz although there is a doubt that he has time for this forum as he condemned many times before.
Hyams on the other hand tells people he does not read this paper and it is sure that he does and anon 4 is him knowing his previous years comments and such comments can only come from him because he thinks that he is some kind of a boss when certainly he is not. He has been seen visiting this site regularly at least 3+ times a day. (MODERATORS: SENTENCE DELETED)
On the question of marching orders – who the hell Hyams thinks he is? Here is a clear case where a Mayor does not believe he is one among the other councillors. As much as he appears to first timers that he is a good man he (MODERATORS: rest of sentence deleted)
It appears clear that Pilling has now seen through the gang; a very fact that he stood by Delahunty. Hopefully, Pilling knows that the group of 4 took his advantage during the last term by two of his colleagues that represented Rosstown. Souness cannot be put in the same basket as O’kotell as she does not have grey matter as she keeps repeating and endorsing all that the other 3 liberals keep saying.The prediction is that O’kotell will leave the council next year as it is not her cup of tea, whereas Souness who is found asking questions and making decisions better than O’Kotell at any time.
September 5, 2013 at 9:29 AM
Blake. AKA Cr Lobo?????????
September 5, 2013 at 8:38 AM
Hyams’s comments on the need for “informed decisions” are an absolute absurdity and are heavily reliant (again) on selective memory.
Got question for you Jamie – Seaview Heritage property and numerous heritage advisers reports (including that of Council’s own Heritage Adviser) all of which advised retaining Heritage Listing. Council even admitted, that although it had looked, it was unable to find a heritage adviser with a contrary opinion. Council’s decision (in the absence of Esakoff, who being the wife of the one of the unit owners, declared a conflict of interest) was to remove the heritage listing. (http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/mayors-husband-lobbied-on-heritage-listing-20110817-1iy85.html,)
The independent planning panel who assessed the evidence slammed Council and its planning department and the heritage listing had to be retained.
Council/lors presented little or no justification for deciding against the experts (commissioned by and paid by Council) and no Councillor claimed any heritage expertise. Hyams’s argument for voting for removal of the heritage listing were that Council was not bound by the heritage advisers reports and could form it’s own opinion – Council did not do anything illegal. Judge for yourselves the quality of this argument.
PS. 6 of the current 9 Glen Eira Councillors were incumbent during the heritage issue.
September 5, 2013 at 2:00 PM
You are wrong. The Glen Eira Council used their powers to place a Heritage Overlay on the Seaview flats. They are according to the law required to advise the owners of what they are doing. In this case they only told one owner. The other two never knew they had a Heritage overlay on their property. The Heritage advisor drove past and thought it was one single home. It is actually 3 Strata titled properties. All Esakoff did was wind back the clock and use the process that all other people had open to them 12 years ago when they first learnt that their property had been listed. The Council acted unlawfully by failing to notify the owners. Ask yourself what you would do if some town hall person put an overlay on your property and didn’t tell you. Esakoff lost but had the right to appeal which he probably would have done years ago if he had known what was going on. The person that made the mistake is probably still working for US.
September 5, 2013 at 4:01 PM
Before making this comment you should have read the Amendment C83 Independent Planning Panel Report (http://planningschemes.dpcd.vic.gov.au/Shared/ats.nsf/WebViewUniqueID/9897f73734f3d1d3ca257844007e6e49?OpenDocument&G&Glen%20Eira&Gannawarra%2CGlen%20Eira%2CGlenelg%2CGolden%20Plains%2CGreater%20Bendigo%2CGreater%20Dandenong%2CGreater%20Geelong%2CGreater%20Shepparton&Click=CA256DC800080C18.476caac79d318ee2ca256dee001434f7/$Body/0.2C98)
September 5, 2013 at 5:53 PM
The Council staff made a mistake years ago. You don’t seem to get that part. That means they didn’t follow the law. Pretty simple. They didn’t write to two of the owners. Get it?
September 5, 2013 at 6:05 PM
Dear Anon,
surely the point being made by this commentator isn’t about whether mistakes were made by officers, nor whether the owner affected by the error had/has legal recourse. The point is about councillors’ decision making capacity. If the argument is continually put that no decision should be made without ‘advice’ and that advice comes not only from officers but both internal and external experts as in this case, with the result that councillors ignore that expert advice, then surely their argument against Notice of Motion falls flat on its face and calls into question the very capacity of these councillors to make ‘informed decisions’. We will leave the issue of supporting a mate to the side at this point.
September 5, 2013 at 11:30 AM
I really tried to be objective when reading the reasoning of the no voters to the motion to re-instate the “Notice of Motion” but it is really hard to interpret their substandard reasoning as anything other than “I don’t trust my analytical abilities and could get carried away during the heat of the moment”. They had more than enough time to consider, research and discuss the issue (two months) and they time to review and question the report that was tabled (no one asked for an extension). Therefore, you really have to wonder just how seriously Councillors take their role as the elected representatives and the functions of Local Government.
I also take issue with Hyams’s comment that “It may be fine to think that councillors would do their own research but some councillors don’t even read the agendas so expecting them to do their own research is ‘asking a bit much’. Sorry Jamie, expecting Councillors to read, question, analyze and present a coherent argument on any issue they are voting on is a basic requirement of their elected office. Their failure to do so cannot and should not be shrugged off as “asking a bit too much”
September 5, 2013 at 1:23 PM
Where do these people get off. They’ve smashed every tradition of government by voting against petitions and now voting against letting a speaker have a few more minutes. Esakoff’s outrage is a joke given the outrage she Lipshtuz and Hyams have brought to local government. A disgrace.