Approval sought to arm private security guards on Glen Eira Council property
December 22, 2015 12:00am
Cheryl Balfour
Glen Eira Council received a request to allow armed guards on its property. A CONFIDENTIAL report has confirmed a private security company sought approval from Glen Eira Council for guards to carry guns in public places, just two months ago.
The council has dodged questions on the issue since Caulfield Glen Eira Leader first revealed on December 7 that the issue went before a confidential council meeting on October 20.
The issue has caused friction at the council, with Cr Oscar Lobo accused of “anti-semitism” for comments he made during a council debate about public security. Cr Oscar Lobo’s comments during a council debate have incensed some in the community.
Leader has since obtained the confidential ‘Change to Council’s Risk Profile’ report tabled at the November 27 Audit Committee meeting. The report says: “On October 6, 2015 a non-government security group wrote to council seeking authority for some of its members to carry concealed firearms at events held on council property”.
Councillors Mary Delahunty and Thomas Sounness confirmed a letter from the Community Security Group seeking consent for security measures for Jewish events going forward was circulated among councillors on October 6.
The risk profile report states, “council officers would not give permission for an event under these circumstances but would suggest alternative venues for consideration”.
It says council management advised that if the council proposed to authorise the request, all security personnel must be licenced and have Australian citizenship or Australian residency. Firearms management should comply with legislation and evidence of public liability insurance of $20m must be provided, according to the report.
The document says that after the October 20 special council meeting, the security group “advised Council that it held public liability insurance of $20m on the following basis: “use of guns — covered”.
Minutes show a majority of councillors voted to close the October 20 meeting to the public and that “matters affecting the security of council property” were discussed.
Sources have confirmed to Leader off the record that councillors voted to allow armed guards on council property, including parks.
Mayor Neil Pilling again refused to comment and directed Leader to a council statement that “there is no authorisation by Glen Eira Council for the carrying of firearms for any current or future event anywhere in Glen Eira”.
The statement does not mention past events.
Victoria Police spokesman Acting Superintendent Richard Koo said police authorised individuals to provide armed guard services. “Provided a private security guard holds the appropriate sub-activity of armed guard on their licence there is no legislative restriction on where the activity can be carried out so long as the individual is abiding by the conditions stipulated on their licence and legislation.”
Police confirmed armed security guards could protect property and cash in transit only.
Government spokesman Kosta Pandos said it was “a matter for the council, however any decisions such as this must comply with the law”. “I can say that the government wants to see less guns on our streets and not more.”
Caulfield State Liberal MP David Southwick said the matter was between police and the council.
Glen Eira Debates 
December 22, 2015 at 9:42 AM
This stinks to high heaven from all aspects. Leaks continue and it can only be coming from 2 sources either Newton or Delahunty and co. I’m more worried by the fact that if council made the decision to let guns in on the 20 October and they were only told about the insurance after this date then the Lipshutz mob voted for something that was either illegal and they knew it to be illegal or at least a major threat to council finances if something went wrong. Lipshutz’s favourite line is that he and others have to be responsible. What a bloody joke that this.
December 22, 2015 at 10:52 AM
Come off it Oscar. You voted to hold the discussion in camera (and thereby declared the issue “confidential”, ie not made known to the electorate). Either you voted for confidentiality without knowing what was to be discussed or you knew was what to be discussed.
Now we get another belated claim of it wasn’t me (similar to the zones) and it plain old just doesn’t cut it.
If this is your idea of taking community representation seriously then your idea of what representation means is clealy not in line with that of the community.
December 22, 2015 at 11:10 AM
Please note:
1. issue was discussed at assembly on October 6th
2. Lipshutz called for first ‘urgent business’ at October 13th council meeting
3. Conclusion? – councillors knew very well what the issue was about.
December 23, 2015 at 10:40 AM
Jamie the treat or tricks man – is he really a true person representing the entire community of Glen Eira? The residential development codes is a perfect example. The mantra words are just mantra and the zones are expanded and made as a law.
December 22, 2015 at 11:23 AM
Cr Lobo is an honest Councillor.
(MODERATORS: phrase deleted) of Lipshutz and Hyams have been exposed.
Further facts to come
It will shock the community.
Lipshutz and Hyams have been teetering on the edges of illegality since 2010.
Now they have finally done something illegal that will involve the police as well as the stripping of Lipshutz practicing certificate in the law, he will not be able to practice law anymore!
Watch this space.
MODERATORS: we have no evidence to substantiate this commentator’s claims. If he/she would like to forward us further information, then please do so. Our email is: gedebates@gmail.com
December 22, 2015 at 11:30 AM
(MODERATORS: phrase deleted) of Lipshutz and Hyams have been engineering the control of the Council for the last 6 years and have finally been exposed.
Who will save them now?
(MODERATORS: sentence deleted) Two things that they pride themselves upon.
There should be a police investigation into their behaviour as well as the bullying behaviour they have continuously engaged in against Cr Lobo.
THIS ENDS NOW
BYE BYE LIPSHUTZ AND HYAMS!
December 22, 2015 at 12:18 PM
Gradually the leaks are filling in the missing gaps. They all point to the illegality of Council holding a meeting in secret since the issue isn’t about protecting Council property but about a particular religious group hiring gun-toting private security to protect their members at events held on Council land.
Cr Pilling may be right about “no authorisation”, as none is required and none was sought. What was sought was “consent” that Council wouldn’t kick up a fuss if they did it. Provided the event organisers satisfy the conditions Council has put on them, they get their event Permits. I think Cr Pilling is hinting that Council will not place constraints on some permit applicants concerning guns and will take no action if guns are deployed.
December 22, 2015 at 2:05 PM
Old habits die hard. We quote from the minutes of July 3rd, 2006! –
(b) COUNCILLOR QUESTIONS
Cr Staikos said his question was to Cr Ashmor and Cr Lipshutz. He asked: “At the Council Meeting of 27 February 2006 Cr Kate Ashmor foreshadowed raising a matter of Urgent Business in the in-camera section of that meeting. At the Council Meeting of 20 March 2006 I pointed out to the Council and to the public that the correct procedures of the Local Government Act had not been followed when applying confidentiality to the item because the reason for the items confidentiality was not stated. Crs Ashmor and Lipshutz then moved retrospectively that the reason for the items confidentiality came under Section 89 sub Section 2 part H of the Act which states; any other matter which the Council or a special committee considers would prejudice the Council or any other person. On Tuesday 21 March 2006 I sent an
email to all Councillors asking that Cr Ashmor and Cr Lipshutz tell Councillors and the public who is the person or persons that would be prejudiced by the in-camera item becoming public. I did not receive a reply. I sent a follow up email to all Councillors on Thursday 27 April 2006 over one month since my first email stating the fact that if Council Officers applied Section 89 sub Section 2 part H to a Council Agenda Item and Councillors asked them to justify the use of this section of the Act to stop the item becoming public the Officers would be obliged to provide an explanation and would be held accountable. Further to this I once again extended Cr Ashmor and Cr Lipshutz the opportunity to explain to Council who is the person or persons that would be prejudiced by the in-camera item becoming public. Once again I did not receive a reply. I asked Cr Lipshutz the same question again at the Briefing
Meeting on 8 May 2006 and again he would not provide an answer. Cr Lipshutz has stated time and time again that he does not like these issues becoming public. I therefore extended him the courtesy of asking him the question internally. Since this avenue does not appear to be working I ask him and Cr Ashmor to now provide an answer in the public domain.”
Cr Ashmor responded. She said: “I will be answering on behalf of Cr Lipshutz and myself. The Council would be prejudiced.”
December 22, 2015 at 2:22 PM
Nothing has changed in 9 years. Lipshutz and his friends have contributed nothing to this council apart from making it a secret society and totally divisive.
December 22, 2015 at 2:38 PM
Lipshutz and Hyams are behind all of this.
(MODERATORS: two sentences deleted).
Do you own research.
Be on your watch!
December 24, 2015 at 8:24 AM
Poor Jewish community has not been fed the real story.
December 22, 2015 at 2:38 PM
off topic but has anyone noticed how many trees have been removed for the north road crossing removal? Very sad as they must be very mature trees. There are a load more with yellow tape tied around them. Wonder if this means they will be removed too. Maybe in 10 or 20 years we will learn to appreciate what we once had
December 22, 2015 at 4:21 PM
Early this morning the Leader online version of this article had 2 comments up. Now they are gone. Who is putting the screws on the Leader and if the comments have been removed there should be an explanation.
December 22, 2015 at 4:44 PM
I have commented on the December 16 article 15 times because each time my comment was removed. This is an “inside” job. (MODERATORS: sentence deleted)
read into that exactly how you will
MODERATORS: we have removed the alleged name of the author of this comment since we do not believe it to be genuine.
December 22, 2015 at 7:36 PM
Our Mayor hasn’t got the guts to tell the resident how he voted, what a piss-weak effort
December 23, 2015 at 1:54 AM
he voted for guns
December 22, 2015 at 8:41 PM
Number 2 – Go take a hike. You are certainly a very sick person and you need help from psychiatrics. Your dual personality is now very clear to residents. We were in the gallery when Lobo asked to be forgiven for the effects of the hopeless residential zones. He saw the tears rolling down people’s cheecks and broke ranks and as someone said “he did a political suicide” We are a group of residents who hold Lobo family in high regards and some are his family friends.
The motion on close door had two parts:
1. To close the door to public – In camera
2. To vote and make decision on the motion
To move the first part:
a) The legislation allows a close door motion as is always the case.
Not to have the meeting in closed doors would need 4 additional
Councillors plus Mary Delahunty to move it into public view although
it could be challenged.
At the time of 2nd part of the motion, the issue was debated and it received the approval from again 6 Councillors.
December 24, 2015 at 7:05 PM
It is arguable that the legislation doesn’t permit a “close door motion”, since motions aren’t mentioned. What it does specify is that a meeting may be closed if it is discussing any one of a long list of matters. In a different clause LGA states that the Minutes must contain details of the proceedings and resolutions made. From that it is clear that the intent of Parliament is that decisions aren’t to be secret, just that in certain situations the reasons for the decisions can be.
December 22, 2015 at 8:50 PM
A puppet of those who have the sticks and he is fed noodles. He votes with gang and gets rewarded with Mayoralty. Was a shame for Greens like Magee labor who does not belong to Labor.
December 22, 2015 at 9:45 PM
MODERATORS: comment deleted
December 23, 2015 at 1:27 PM
Gleneira/Moderators
I am just catching up reading the Glen Eira Debates and it is pathetic to hear that we see the need for guns to protect a community on public land owned by ratepayers.
The world is trying to curb fire arms and America has weekly killings done by mentally ill etc.
John Howard will be disappointed if he reads the news on guns in Caulfield park and council’s decision. Liberals in Victoria will not be happy chapies.
The risk report was held from public which is bad news and ill intentioned.
Can someone tell us which of the 9 Councillors did not want the ratepayers to know the risk report?
If the State government cares for people,then they need to send in very experienced Investigators as well as the police.
The GE residents are fed up with Councillors playing up number games for gains.
December 23, 2015 at 1:31 PM
Those voting in favour of secrecy were – Hyams, Lipshutz, Esakoff, Okotel, Pilling and Magee
December 23, 2015 at 1:42 PM
There you have it.
EXPOSED and SHAMED
Someone call the police!
December 24, 2015 at 12:37 PM
We met Cr Lobo this morning and congratulated his stand on guns. He said nothing that can be construed as not of good taste. Hyams works for Jewish paper and as always does what he is good at changing the real story.People of Tucker ward support Lobo and we know half a dozen Jewish community who say that Jamie is inciting trouble and becoming conspicuous in steering pot of hatred. How can Hyams represent the Tucker Ward community when he does not live in Tucker ward?
December 24, 2015 at 1:22 PM
Cr Lobo is a great guy
Good to hear that the truth about Jamie Hyams is being exposed.
Hyams is not a good man, I find him to (MODERATORS: rest of sentence deleted)
December 24, 2015 at 5:52 PM
Commentary thread on this post is hilarious. Mods, can you tell us how many repeat comments from same IP address?