PS – ANNOUNCEMENT OF NEW CEO
AUDIT COMMITTEE REPORT
DELAHUNTY: whilst reporting on this meeting, Delahunty referred to Item 8 of the minutes which stated – “The Committee noted the paper on changes to Council’s risk profile.”. Said ‘we had a paper presented’ and that she wanted the mover and seconder of the motion to accept the minutes of the advisory committees to ‘amend their resolutions’ in the minutes so that the ‘paper’ would be incorporated into these council minutes. This amendment was not accepted by Hyams and Lipshutz. Sounness seconded Delahunty’s amendment.
DELAHUNTY: asked Newton to confirm whether the paper presented to the Audit Committee was written by himself and whether he considers it to be confidential. Newton stated that he did write it and was confidential. Delahunty went on and said that she thought the paper would be available under FOI and that she thought it was ‘important’ for people to see ‘items such as this and how they reflect on the risk profile’ of the organisation. Said that council takes its ‘risk profile very seriously’. Said that the paper is about the changes to the risk profile ‘of the organisation as a whole’. Believed that ‘it is an important paper for the public to have access to’ and that ‘it would go some way’ to help people understand ‘some of the media reports’ of recent times. Asked councillors to find ‘in their hearts the transparency’ that is important and to release the paper because ‘the public is intelligent enough’ to ‘have a conversation about risk management’.
SOUNNESS: said he had attended the meeting and thought the paper was ‘factually important’ and highlights ‘the risks looked at by council’ and without specifying anything that he might feel ‘uncomfortable’ about some of ‘what those risks might be’.
HYAMS: thought that Delahunty’s implication that councillors didn’t want the item put into the ‘public’ domain was because councillors didn’t think residents were ‘intelligent’ enough and there were ‘lots of other reasons’.
DELAHUNTY: raised a point of order and stated ‘that’s not what I said’
HYAMS: ‘that’s exactly what you said’.
Pilling then asked Delahunty on ‘what point of order’ and she replied ‘on misrepresention’. Pilling fumbled and mumbled and asked Delahunty to ‘clarify’. Delahunty said that she said that she thought that residents were ‘intelligent enough’ and ‘did not infer’ that council thought otherwise.
HYAMS: stated that ‘Delahunty’s comments speak for themselves’. Continued that ‘there are plenty of other reasons’ why you might want to keep something confidential’. The Local Government Act has 9 such sections and so do other branches of government. Found it extraodinary that Delahunty could want the ‘underbelly’ of Council published and he was ‘sure’ that if the Audit Committee wanted it published they would have provided for this. Said he was ‘quite disappointed’ with the motion.
Delahunty then asked Newton that she thought it was Lipshutz who had asked for the ‘insurance map’ to ‘be released’ to full Council. Said that this was just ‘another example of Audit papers that come before council’.
LIPSHUTZ: said that he is being ‘misrepresented’ and that he didn’t ask for this.
DELAHUNTY: apologised and said that she thought ‘it might have been’ Lipshutz and that it could have been someone else. But it is ‘still another example of audit papers’ released.
NEWTON: confirmed that something like this had been ‘suggested’. Said that there are papers that go to councillors and vice versa.
LOBO: claimed that the ‘basic responsibility’ of a councillor is to ‘heighten the awareness of residents of risk’. Said in this instant if the ‘servant is serving his master’ then it is the servant’s ‘responsibility to tell where the risk lies’ and ‘why we hiding all the time’ and that people’s ‘perception is that we are not trustworthy’. Thought it was ‘time to break’ this perception and ‘start a new year 2016’.
AMENDMENT PUT TO THE VOTE – VOTING FOR – DELAHUNTY, SOUNNESS, LOBO
AGAINST – HYAMS, LIPSHUTZ, ESKAOFF, PILLING, OKOTEL, MAGEE
Original motion then put and speakers asked for.
LOBO: said that CEO is retiring and that there is ‘normally a procedure’ for an exit interview with a ceo ‘who has served more than a decade’. With Newton leaving ‘he could tell us what we do not know’ so ‘that’s another risk we may have’.
LIPSHUTZ: sprang up on a point of order.
DELAHUNTY: asked Pilling to determine the ‘grounds’ of Lipshutz’ point of order.
LIPSHUTZ: said that Lobo was ‘talking about what should happen’ and not ‘what did happen’.
DELAHUNTY: claimed that if this was about ‘relevance’ then the issue was ‘considered at number ten of the Audit Committee’.
PILLING then ‘over-ruled’ Lipshutz and said that the issue was raised at the audit committee.
LOBO: said that he was ‘used to rubbishing’.
LIPSHUTZ – another point of order and Pilling asked him to ‘speak to the issue at hand’.
LOBO: said he was speaking to the issue because ‘my masters are here’ (ie gallery). Said that they had ‘left’ the exit interview to the ‘discretion of the CEO’ and he ‘may or may not have accepted’ but ‘it is his responsibility to let us know why he resigned on the 20th October – a very good date’.
PILLING: said that it ‘is true’ that Lobo raised this at the audit committee meeting. The ‘offer was made’ to Newton and it ‘was declined’ and ‘that is the end of the story’. Said that it was ‘not mandatory’.
Motion put and carried. Voting against – Lobo, Sounness, Delahunty.
Voting for – Lipshutz, Hyams, Esakoff, Okotel, Pilling, Magee
December 16, 2015 at 11:30 AM
Must have been an awesome night with so much brotherly love on exhibition. Reading between the lines it is as clear as day that those arch conservatives want their secrets kept close to the chest.
With the audit committee this is an old story. Lipshutz gets on year after year so he can keep his thumb on the money and more secrets that aren’t passed on to the rest of the councillors. That is governance of the highest order and in my naivety I always thought that is was Council with a capital “C” that is supposed to be in charge of everything and not the audit committee and one or two councillors. Council must be governing so well when they don’t get informed about many if not most things.
The only good thing about the last council meeting of the year is that it is the last council meeting with Newton. Now there is the real conundrum. Can’t figure out why with 3 years to run of a contract and bullying and legal threats not beyond him, why resign now and on the 20th October. Oscar, can you tell us?
December 16, 2015 at 12:01 PM
Exit interviews are normal from what I know. You would think that after nearly 20 years in the place there would be a bit of loyalty from Newton – unless he is hiding plenty.
December 16, 2015 at 3:05 PM
I am pleased that a woman has been chosen as new ceo. It will be very intriguing to see how she handles that old boys club of Burke Lipshutz and Hyams plus the others. She will have an enormous challenge in getting some of these to toe the line and to respect the community. I sincerely and fervently hope that under her there will be dramatic change in how this council functions and how its governance must be turned on its head. The next step in an ideal world would be for all the current incumbents to be removed. That would be heaven. I wait with bated breath.
December 16, 2015 at 4:05 PM
There is such a huge disconnect between our councillors’ behaviour and the purpose of local government [hint: it involves peace, order, and good government of their municipal districts].
Even when councillors abuse the freedom under s.90 to close meetings to the public [ironically titled “Meetings to be open to the public”], there is still a requirement under s.93 to publish Minutes that contain details of the proceedings and resolutions made; be clearly expressed; be self-explanatory; in relation to resolutions recorded in the minutes, incorporate relevant reports or a summary of the relevant reports considered in the decision making process.
It’s time councillors that you reread what the role of a Council is.
December 16, 2015 at 4:07 PM
Just check out the new CEO on the Mitchell Shire Council website. If she lives up to the description of being “a highly energetic and effective leader, who understands and nurtures the importance of culture, accountability and strategic thinking across the organisation”.
After 13 years of having a secretive CEO who places more importance of the self preservation of the Administration than good governance or residents interests and has absolutely not time for either culture, accountability and strategic thinking, she’s in for one hell of a shock. Once she gets over her initial shock, she should be a breath of long overdue fresh air.
December 16, 2015 at 4:17 PM
Anybody else noticed the announcement of Andrew Newton’s resignation coincided with the passing of the Local Government Amendment (Improved Governance) Act 2015?
December 16, 2015 at 4:35 PM
FYI – ON Mitchell Shire July 2015 –
http://www.weeklytimesnow.com.au/news/politics/rallying-mitchell-shire-ratepayers-in-call-for-administrators/story-fnkerdda-1227459722262
December 16, 2015 at 4:49 PM
Jesus more of the bloody same? No wonder she got the job. Lipshutz and Hyams would definitely want a Newton clone.
December 16, 2015 at 7:53 PM
The lady needs to be given a chance to establish her influence on this council. But, and this is a huge but, if nothing happens within three months of her appointment, then I will be ready to assume that councillors have indeed chosen someone who will dedicate themselves to maintaining the status quo. That would be an absolute tragedy for residents.
I would also like to know whether this appointment was unanimous and what someone who has only had a limited ceo experience in a country area would be able to deal with and contribute to the urbanised and very political situation in Glen Eira. I’m not saying that Ms McKenzie will be a dud, but to my mind, what is required in Glen Eira is someone with vast experience who can handle factional blocks and is dedicated to dismantling this power base. I don’t think that such qualities were part of the selection criteria if they were “ordered” by the likes of Lipshutz, Hyams, Esakoff, Pilling, Magee and Okotel. All remains to be seen.
December 16, 2015 at 7:03 PM
The female CEO will hopefully see through and through the gang, of course if she is smart like Dela. Good by gang.
December 16, 2015 at 8:37 PM
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/leader/inner-south/glen-eira-councillor-oscar-lobo-accused-of-making-antisemitic-comments-at-meeting/news-story/e9ee12720d4bd0aaca8ae18e0fedaeb0#load-story-comments
More on what actually happened tomorrow.
December 16, 2015 at 10:08 PM
Lobo is a fool and Hyams is a snake in the grass. End of story.
December 17, 2015 at 8:31 AM
Can you explain why you think Lobbs is a fool and Hyna a snake in the grass. How would you consider yourself?
December 16, 2015 at 10:30 PM
Lobo caught with the hook in his mouth again, the man’s a waste of time and effort.
As for Hyams, well he’s a professional agitator, and his crying like a stuck pig is a bit too much to handle, Jamie seems to live for moments like this, he’s alway hanging out the bait, waiting for that dumb fish to bite.
Super hero, no way, small man syndrome 100%
Both men are a disgrace to the office they hold
December 24, 2015 at 12:43 PM
Lobo has been vindicated
Lipshutz Hyams and Esakoff have been caught with their pants down….and what an ugly sight it is…(MODERATORS: phrase deleted)
Pilling an Magee are not kosher