On Tuesday night a public question was asked regarding what our councillor representatives on the Racecourse Reserve Trustees were doing to ensure that the Auditor General recommendations were being fully implemented. Council’s response to this question is quite literally astounding. What is even more astounding is that not one councillor had the courage to stand up and either query this response or, to disassociate him/herself from this nonsense.
The response is in direct conflict with the Auditor General’s report in all facets. Either the Auditor General does not know what he is talking about, or council does not have a clue as to its responsibilities to the community and to proper governance. Here are some quotes from the AG Report –
The management of the reserve was vested in a group of trustees who represented the government, the Melbourne Racing Club (MRC) and the local municipality—Glen Eira City Council. (page vii)
Under the Crown grant, 15 trustees are appointed by the Governor in Council to manage the reserve—six each representing government and the Melbourne Racing Club (MRC) and three representing Glen Eira City Council. (page ix)
More recently, the government and Glen Eira council trustee representatives have recognised that governance standards in line with contemporary practice should be introduced. (page xii)
The land was permanently reserved in the 19th century for three purposes—a racecourse, public recreation ground and public park. Management of the reserve is vested in 15 trustees—six government nominees, six Melbourne Racing Club (MRC) nominees and three council nominees representing the local municipality, Glen Eira City Council. (page 1)
Within the trust, there have been differing views about how these competing uses can be reconciled. More recently, this has created tensions between trustees representing the Melbourne Racing Club (MRC) and those representing the government and Glen Eira City Council. (page 26)
The make-up of the trust enables MRC, Glen Eira City Council and state government views to be considered as part of its decision-making processes. Until recently, however, members of the local community had no direct means of engaging with trustees on matters of importance to them. They had to rely on council representatives to present their views. (page 28)
Each and every one of these Auditor General statements establishes that Lipshutz, Hyams and Esakoff are REPRESENTATIVES of Glen Eira Council and therefore the local community. They are ‘directed’ by Council in the interests of the local community.
Yet, the response to the public question denies this obligation, and flies in the face of not only the Auditor General’s report, but community views and expectations. If Hyams, Lipshutz, and Esakoff do NOT represent the community via council, then they should be sacked immediately or have the good grace to resign forthwith.
Here is the question and the official Council ‘response’ – it cannot be deemed an ‘answer’!
“In September the Victorian Auditor General published the report on the Management and Oversight of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve. I attach copy 3B of page 38 “Access and signage issues at the reserve” and I ask you to note that there are 22 out of 24 indicators of inadequate access. Please tell me what instructions our councillor members of the C.R.R.T., Cr Esakoff, Cr Hyams and Cr Lipshutz are being given at council to overcome this undesirable situation as the VAG in Clause 6 Page 39 recommended the need to “upgrade public access and improve signage at all entry access points and within the reserve to a standard that improves safety and encourages increased community use.”
The Mayor read Council’s response. He said:
“Although three councillors are trustees of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve, they serve as trustees in their own rights, not as representatives or delegates of Council, and therefore, Council does not instruct them.”
Glen Eira Debates 
February 5, 2015 at 11:45 AM
Confirms what we’ve known all along. Add Pilling and the others represent the Melbourne Racing club and their financial interests.
February 5, 2015 at 11:52 AM
Don’t forget to attend Planning Conference regarding MRC OPEN AIR PLACE OF ASSEMBLY
App. for screenings every night of year (365) for 500 persons
Food and alcohol until 1.00am. on our race course near the aministration area.
This is to be at the Town Hall …ironically it is to be in the Caulfield Cup Room at 6.30 pm Thursday 5 February.
February 5, 2015 at 2:28 PM
Gonna be bloody interesting to see who chairs and if the 3 stooges will declare conflicts when its time to decide
February 5, 2015 at 12:14 PM
Re Council’s response – would some one please explain to me why only incumbent Councillor’s (who by virtue of their elected role representatives of the community) are eligible for nomination for appointment as Trustees of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve. And why as “supposed” community and Council representatives they do not have to comply with the Council’s stated policies (ie. instructions) and recorded wishes of the community.
February 5, 2015 at 1:47 PM
Another kick in the face for open, transparent, accountable and resprentative governance.
All hinges on legalistic interpretation of the use of the word “instructions”. All Council’s response says is that Councillor Trustees are not are not given any instructions as such so that’s the end of story. Very unforunate given that this is a legitmate public question that is of significant concern to residents (and has been for years).
Of course Council could have more appropriately responded “that Council does not instruct the Councillor Trustees on how to vote on any given issue. However, Councillor Trustees, as representatives of the Council and the community, are requested to vote in reasonable accordance with Council’s policies and position statements”. Still actually says squat but it’s a much more acceptable squat that shows some attempt was made to answer the question.
February 5, 2015 at 3:49 PM
For years now the question of councillor reps as trustees has been fraught with controversy and contradiction. No consistent policy has been shown by any of our supposed “representatives”. Some declare conflicts of interest sometimes. Others do not at any stage. Some answer public questions as to the goings on in formal trustee meetings – others do not. Nor do residents get to know exactly what our supposed “representatives” vouch for at these trustee meetings, nor the extent to which they pursue any council policy. The “agreement” is the perfect example of non-compliance. Whether or not a word about any of this is mentioned, argued, insisted upon remains unknown.
I also have a very real problem with the current crop of representatives since conflicts of interest featured strongly in the auditor general’s report. Appointments of political allies by the ex planning minister, and in particular, those very individuals who decided the fate of the C60 would seem to me to invite skepticism as to the probity of such a decision and its ongoing influences.
Nothing that has happened in the past six months since the release of the auditor general’s report fills me with confidence that things have changed. The Melbourne Racing Club is still thumbing its nose at all and sundry and demanding more and more. The trustee website is so out of date that it might as well not be there. Council itself has done as little as it possibly can. It has written letters and asked for valuations. But all of this was suggested years ago before the caulfield village permit. Nothing has been said by council as to removal of training, and fences.
All in all, the auditor general’s report is disappointing. Working on the assumption that repeat recidivists can mend their ways is totally unrealistic. The past 6 months show this. The trustees should have been axed in September last year and a neutral committee of management that includes community representation appointed. Giving the racing industry more time is only giving them more time to capitalise on their profit making ventures with the valued assistance of council and the council trustee representatives I believe.
February 7, 2015 at 1:07 PM
well stated !!!
February 5, 2015 at 4:40 PM
Whoever worded the question made it easy for the response to be drafted.
They asked, Please tell me what instructions our councillor members………..
If it had said, Can the mayor please ask the council trustees what strategy they will use to overcome this undesirable situation as the VAG in Clause 6 ……..etc. Too easy
February 5, 2015 at 9:43 PM
Given this latest response, it seems pretty clear that the GECC councillors who are also trustees of CRRT have a conflict of interest when Council deals with matters concerning CRRT and their major leaseholder MRC about the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve. The exemptions under LGA s.78B don’t apply here. It’s time for Local Government Inspectorate to do an audit of every decision made by Council concerning CRR and whether the councillors who were also Trustees appropriately declared conflicts of interest.
February 6, 2015 at 7:48 AM
My assessment of this posting and the above comments is quite simple – it confirms just how hard it is to get information from our open and transparent Council.
February 6, 2015 at 11:57 AM
watch this space. i expect the new labor gov’t to support mrc, but stack crrt with labor sympathisers after council election.
February 7, 2015 at 1:37 PM
funny as well because as well as the council crrt members voting independently of council directions we also have MRC reps who would be voting on MRC directions. Except maybe the 2 who also have an interest in Aquainta Racing who would want the cheapest lease possible 30 k versus 250k that it was valued at.