Lipshutz moved to accept. Seconded by Okotel
Lipshutz had ‘nothing to add’. Lobo spoke ‘against’.
LOBO: said that in the past he had ‘expressed my reservations’ about the records of assembly in that the minutes are ‘altered, changed, replaced’. Agreed that there couldn’t be ‘details’ but that council shouldn’t ‘be permitted without the consensus of everyone’ to change things.Thought that ‘changing and replacing’ would have ‘implications’ down the track ‘such as conflicts of interest’.
PILLING: said that he knows that Lobo has raised this before but he was confident that ‘process’ was being followed and it’s ‘good’ to be ‘diligent in the upkeeping’ of the ‘policies’.
LIPSHUTZ: started off by saying that ‘no one is changing these minutes’ and if they come to council ‘they are the minutes’ and if councillors decide to change anything ‘they do so at this meeting’ and ‘nowhere else’. Even though Lobo has raised the issue he agrees with Pilling that ‘process is being followed’.
MOTION PUT AND CARRIED. LOBO VOTED AGAINST.
Glen Eira Debates 
March 22, 2014 at 10:14 PM
Looks like process has become the buzz word of the moment. It means nothing of course when there is no written down and public statement on its definition and implementation. Sounds good and that’s about it. Perfect for all the dubious governance practices in this council.
March 23, 2014 at 6:15 PM
Is there a back-story to this? I can see what appears to be retrospective fiddling of the record of past Assemblies of Councillors through subsequent Assemblies, but what with Council not being keen on versioning its documents, it’s unclear what the practical effect has been. Taken literally, it could mean that Cr Esakoff wasn’t happy with the record for 28 Jan 2014 stating in B(x)(o) “Cr Esakoff—raised resident concerns in relation to changes to the parking arrangements at the Bambra Road shops”; or it could be that the version that eventually filtered into Council Minutes has her requested change made [add “raised resident concerns”, delete other words].
In the meantime, there have been at least 2 different version of the Minutes for 25 Feb 2014 published. Looks like it’s not just the Caulfield Racecourse Trustees that has problems with document control.
March 23, 2014 at 10:50 PM
In reality those corrections make little practical difference except making sure that Cr Esakoff perception of doing something for residents is recorded promptly.