Council’s Local Law (yes, the one we’ve been waiting to see ‘revised’ for the past 4 years) states: –Where a question is deemed inappropriate by the Chairperson, the Chief Executive Officer or designated officer shall read to the meeting only the name and suburb of the person and the ground under sub-clause 232(2)(j) on which the question was ruled inappropriate.
This means that the actual question will not be revealed! Unfortunately for council they did publish one question (see below) that was deemed ‘inappropriate’. The alleged ‘justification’ cites Section 232 (j)(iv), which reads –
refers to a matter which would, if answered, breach any provision of the Information Privacy Act 2000 or the confidentiality provisions of the Local Government Act 1989
Glen Eira Debates 
March 18, 2016 at 10:03 AM
Burkey’s ballsups are growing. Reckon this’ll be gone quick smart.
March 18, 2016 at 10:17 AM
Technically Mr Wilkinson hasn’t asked any specific questions. Some comments in response could have been made however. I certainly agree with his claim of factional voting and deplore the waste of public funds on wild goose chases that have got nothing to do with racism and everything to do with the upcoming council elections. The grounds given by council are also very dubious.
March 18, 2016 at 10:22 AM
A question doesn’t have to be inappropriate to be “deemed” inappropriate. “Deeming” gives Council the power to refuse to respond to any question that it doesn’t want to. Mr Wilkinson’s question is actually multiple questions—perfectly naturally since Council introduced its arbitrary 2-question limit. Not all of them could reasonably be considered to breach privacy or secrecy provisions. More material for the Ombudsman in her investigation of the abuse by councils of the secrecy provisions in Local Government Act. From a purely moral and ethical standpoint, refusing to answer questions is also refusing to be accountable.
March 18, 2016 at 10:33 AM
Dear Mr Wilkinson,
I wholeheartedly agree with your views expressed in your questions to the Council. I am also pleased to see that your name has been made public now, as it is important to know people that are forthright, ethical and express the thoughts and views of the silent majority.
I would urge you to stand for Glen Eira Council election. If you do I for one will join your team to help you in that, whichever ward you go for. Reason, as I said before, we need quality candidates for Glen Eira Council elections.
To all those that are thinking to stand, start now and get the public behind you. Voters need to know you and know what you stand for. It is critical that we get rid of the stacked voting routine that is routinely carried out by the Libs, primarily lawyers, whose allegiance seem to be to their ethnic communities rather than residents and ratepayers of the wards they represent.
March 18, 2016 at 1:21 PM
Simple rule of thumb for upcoming voting – no lawyers, no candidates that existing councillors give their first or second preference to, no political party affiliations. If the candidate meets all of these then they might be worth your vote.
March 19, 2016 at 7:56 AM
Normally existing councillors would preference themselves first.
March 19, 2016 at 7:18 AM
Rarely do I agree with you Conanon, but in this case I certainly do.
The views and understanding of how GE Council operates expressed in the above questions are an accurate description of GEC’s seriously impaired decision making processes.
While I doubt any Councillor has actually read the above letter and even if one Cr. has it would have been instantly dismissed. This is regrettable since the letter clearly shows how far apart the views of Crs. and the community are on what constitutes acceptable standards of representation.
And yep, it is extremely important for those thinking of standing to make themselves and their campaign platform known to the community as quickly as possible.
March 18, 2016 at 2:45 PM
This is one totally f***ed up council. Been reading some of the public questions. Bullshit answers. When people ask what if any meetings have been had with Southwick, Ministers then it can’t be that hard to say we haven’t had any or we have had some and either its confidential or here is what was discussed and what our view is or we tried to get a meeting but were turned down and so on. The clowns can keep going this way and act as if they are dead worried about their residents but the proof is in the eating. Not answering questions should tell everyone how much they care about being upfront,honest and concerned about residents.
March 18, 2016 at 5:38 PM
The current Mayor got elected on a platform of “openness, transparency and accountability”. And enough of us to elect him believed him. Gives the word duplicitous real meaning.
March 18, 2016 at 5:40 PM
http://www.crrt.org.au/Portals/0/Downloads/Monday,%2013%20October%202014.pdf. Make sure you keep a copy just in case they disappear. It has only just appeared
March 18, 2016 at 6:45 PM
This deserves a post of its own.
March 18, 2016 at 6:50 PM
Correct! We are digesting the import of this document and will post asap. In the meantime, we suggest that readers acquaint themselves with the contents and note that ‘good governance’ at the trustees does not involve minuting the wording of any motion!
March 18, 2016 at 6:58 PM
Incredible stuff. I keep asking myself why this should be surfacing 18 months down the track unless this is a last ditch attempt to get rid of mrc influence and knowing that moves are probably afoot within government. If so, then hats off to Sword and the non mrc trustees.
March 18, 2016 at 7:03 PM
Agree sword and magee should be thanked for keeping up the fight otherwise we would have nothing
March 20, 2016 at 9:53 AM
Off topic, possibly: a website exists to make it easier for people to make Freedom Of Information applications. On 5 Jan 2016 somebody submitted an application to GECC concerning review of parking infringements and impartiality of the reviewer. On 26 Feb 2016 Council responded, claiming it hadn’t received an FOI application, and asking them to file an application following Council’s Freedom-of-Information procedure along with the statutory application fee [currently $27.20].
It shouldn’t take an FOI application to find out what Council’s policies are, although maybe Council doesn’t have a relevant policy. There is a duty to assist applicants to make requests that comply with the Act, but apparently not to help members of the public find information that should already be published. Somebody could ask a public question, but as seen above, Council has the freedom not to provide the requested information, or deem questions inappropriate, or claim its previous failures to respond satisfactorily were fulsome.
I don’t know what the circumstances behind the request re parking review were, but having been dealt with unsatisfactorily by Melbourne City Council in the past, I was curious what information GECC publishes. Their search engine was typically unhelpful. “Parking Infringement Review” did not find the relevant page. I had more success with “Parking Infringement Appeal”, but that page didn’t provide the requested information.
Google search found an alternative website, possibly run by Tenix Solutions Pty Ltd (AU) and branded using GECC’s previous web style. This gives the impression that parking matters have been outsourced and naturally raises a question whether a commercial operator is reviewing its own decisions with its profitability at stake.
https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/impartiality_of_those_who_review_2
http://www.gleneira.vic.gov.au/Resident-services/Parking/Parking-infringements
https://gleneiraparking.com.au/general_dispute.htm