Presented below is the transcript of a public question taken from the minutes of April 30th, 2009 and the response provided by the then Mayor, and councillor rep on the Racecourse Reserve Trustees, Helen Whiteside. Comparing the response presented below and the utter silence that emanates from current and past trustees today, we question:
- why this difference in approach;
- what has happened in the intervening years to create this ‘secret society’?
- Who is responsible?
- And why are council and councillors so complicit in this clamp down on information dissemination?
- If details of trustee meetings were provided 4 years ago, then why doesn’t this council provide any public report?
- Are all councillors even kept in the loop about what happens at these trustee meetings? Or does the ‘secret society’ now extend only to Newton and the annointed Lipshutz, Esakoff, and Hyams?
Subject: Caulfield Racecourse Trustees
“By way of a comprehensive report, please tell me what transpired at the last meeting of the Caulfield Racecourse Trustees on or about Thursday 19th March 2009.”
The Mayor responded to your Public Question. She said:
“The Trustees’ meeting took place on 19 March 2009. In attendance were 14 of the 15 Trustees, including myself, Cr Tang and Cr Staikos, the Secretary Mr Cleaver and the Business Affairs Manager of the MRC.
There were four main items of business.
Firstly, the Trustees considered the “Communique” between the MRC and Council. The “Communique” proposed that after training had been relocated from Caulfield, land on Neerim Road would be excised from the Racecourse Reserve and be
incorporated into Glen Huntly Park under the control of the Council. The Trustees by a majority decided that they did not wish Trust land to be excised. The Trustees decided to ask the MRC and Council to propose alternative arrangements to give
effect to the underlying intentions of the Communique.
Secondly, the Trustees considered an MRC plan for the development of the centre around the lake. The plan was in two stages with the community facilities in the second stage. Concern was expressed that the area for passive open space had been substantially reduced from what had been previously agreed and Trustees decided that the MRC and Council should consider revised plans for presentation to the next meeting of Trustees.
Thirdly, the Chairman advised that he had received a letter from the Ombudsman about alleged conflict of interest and the Chairman distributed a copy of the Chairman’s reply.
Fourthly, the Trustees agreed that two draft policies should be prepared for consideration at the next meeting:
• A draft policy on Conflict of Interest and
• A draft policy on who should be permitted to attend Trustees’ meetings.”
Glen Eira Debates 
December 4, 2013 at 8:50 PM
Four and a half years ago there was no problem in giving a brief report on what took place at Trustee meetings. Nothing’s changed in terms of laws, constitutions, and regulations. The only thing that has changed is that council has caved in entirely to the mrc and we’ve got the gang as trustees. That’s why they don’t say a word and pretend that they can’t. If they could 4 years ago they can now. They don’t want to – not with the crap that is about to happen with the c60.
December 4, 2013 at 11:13 PM
Pretty amazing post …. not only because of the abhorrent shift in the view of Councillor Trustee appointments (the appointment as trustees being dependent on their being incumbent Councillors and therefore representatives of the community), without any change to the rules/regulations/laws relating to trustee appointment and legal advice to the contrary. Clearly, the terms of Councillor Trustee appointments does not, and never did, override their obligations to the community.
What’s also amazing is that the MRC’s submission to the 2009 VEAC review of crown land and open space included a letter, signed by the MRC but not Council (https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2013/03/23/history-repeats-itself/#comments), agreeing to the removal of training from the Reserve within 10 years and reverting the current centre training tracks to public open space.
The games these two (Council and MRC) are playing at the expense of the community are as abhorrent as the shift in Council’s view of its Trustees responsibilities. Add in the State Government’s failure to abolish an antiquated trustee system of crown load management ( in this case public land valued at over $16 billion) and replace it with a Committee of Management with prescribed responsibilities that support the trust deed (ie. use of the Racecourse Reserve to serve 3 equal uses – racecourse, public park and public recreation area) and its no wonder the games just keep on continuing.
Just when will Council/Councillors actually accept it’s/their community responsibility, stop game playing and focus on the community’s need for open space (recognized in their draft 2013 open space strategy arising from the Caulfield Village Ghetto) and start advocating appropriate management of a substantial chunk of Crown Land.