Once again the faction of Lipshutz, Hyams, Esakoff, Pilling and their newest recruit, Kelvin Ho, have successfully undermined open democratic processes in Glen Eira. In the following ‘debate’, we urge all readers to carefully consider the tenuousness, if not inanity of their arguments, the deliberate misleading and misrepresentation of the facts and what can only be seen as the self-serving motivation of their position. Years and years of appalling anti-community decisions are alive and well in Glen Eira!
ITEM 9.6 – LOCAL LAW AMENDMENT (MEETING PROCEDURES)
Lipshutz moved motion to accept recommendation. Seconded by Hyams.
LIPSHUTZ: began by saying that he chaired the Local Laws Committee and that they had met several times over the past year. Said that the motion is only to go out to public consultation. Said that the proposed amendment on Urgent Business was to facilitate councillors raising an issue that occurred between meetings. Conceded that the ‘most controversial’ proposal concerned public questions. Claimed that public questions ‘had become anachronistic’ because technology (ie webpages, email). Said that he spends many hours answering emails and getting ‘numerous phonecalls’. So ‘if you want to ask a question’ people can via their councillors. In his view ‘public questions have been abused’. ‘We have seen question after question from the same sort of people’ who ask ‘multiple questions on the same things simply to embarrass the council’. Said that ‘the question could have been asked of a councillor’ and they would ‘have been given an answer’. So the amendment wants to move back the time for submission of public questions to 12 pm of the day preceding the council meeting. Also changing ‘should not exceed 150 words’ to ‘must not exceed 150 words’. He doesn’t want the situation ‘where one person dominates’ so they are limiting this to 2 questions. If people ask more then they won’t be read out. Further, ‘if you really want to know what the answer is, come to the council meeting’. ‘If you’re not here at the council meeting’ they will not be read out but will be answered but ‘will not be part of the minutes’. This is ‘important’ because people just want things in the minutes and ‘have no interest in coming to council meetings’. ‘If you want it in the minutes, come here and hear us’. On right of reply, the amendment proposes to remove the clause about it having to be in writing. ‘As long as councillors have notice’ a reply can be made. They don’t want to be ‘caught by surprise. We know when someone is going to say something’. Was sure that there would be ‘some people who do not agree’ with these changes but they can have their say and ‘we will consider’ the views.
HYAMS: said that he was ‘reasonably sure’ that in the past public questions were submitted under aliases. Currently questions come in on the day so can be taken on notice which means that people come to council meetings to hear the answers only to find that they have been taken on notice and no answer given on the night – ‘so having it a day earlier there is a better chance’ that the questions won’t be taken on notice. Also when questions come in on the day there are officers and councillors ‘running around trying to do the research’ to answer the questions.
DELAHUNTY: said she doesn’t agree with all the proposed amendments but will not oppose the motion because it is basically setting up the process for ‘further input’. Thought that the changes ‘limit the ability to participate’ for residents and it ‘almost distances’ council from ‘ratepayers’ by attempting to put in ‘more controls, less talking, less engagement, less interaction’. ‘Local government is about being the closest to the people’. Lipshutz talked about emails and phone calls from residents asking questions, so putting in these conditions is in fact ‘making it more inconsistent’ by making it harder for residents to communicate with council. When people write emails to councillors ‘we don’t say that’s enough’, you’ve asked your two questions, so why should this apply here? Wanted ‘consistent principles’ applied. Council ‘should embrace’ being more ‘interactive with the public’. Didn’t think that the proposed changes ‘embrace best practice’.
HO: said he was ‘happy to listen to any issues’ that residents raised and that he would be every second Tuesday of the month in the Carnegie shopping centre and people could talk to him between 10-12.
SOUNNESS: supported the motion to let people have their say on the amendments. Said that people had told him they were dissatisfied with the local law and one of the previous issues was about ‘frisbee’ was ‘an issue of the local law’ as well as how the ‘meeting procedure works’. He has had ‘strong conversations’ with people on this as well.
LOBO: said that ‘we need uniformity’ with other councils. There should be one law for all councils and ‘not let’ councillors ‘twist and turn what is good’. ‘The local law has to be spoken by the people’. They should be able to ‘speak in the gallery’ and not be restricted to 150 words. ‘Residents should get an opportunity to stand up and ask questions’.
MAGEE: said that councillors are available 365 days a year to the community and 24 hours on the phone, via email. They are ‘available at any stage’. Claimed that in his 8 years there have only been ‘a handful’ of questions that needed to ‘be asked at a council meeting’. He understood the part about 150 words, but he also gets emails of ‘3 to 4 pages’ and he answers. When letters come in to the mayor and councillors, then the mayor answers on ‘behalf of all councillors’. Said that you ‘can’t have one local law’ because they cover ‘everything from dogs to footpaths’ and every council is different. Also silly to say that people should come to council meetings to ‘voice their opinion’. People have ‘voiced their opinion for hundreds of years’ and if this was permitted with the skyrail issue then the meeting would have ‘gone to 2 or 3 or maybe 4 o’clock’ in the morning. It ‘is easier if questions are taken on notice because the answer’ is mostly the same. There is plenty of opportunity for residents to ‘speak’ with councillors ‘one on one’ or via email. Coming to a council meeting and asking a question so that it goes into the minutes you ‘have to wonder why those questions are being asked’. Said that ‘every question’ will be answered but ‘it is not up to council to sit here and have 3 or 4 hundred’ questions answered ‘one by one’. Like Hyams said, councillors are ‘chasing answers’ to sometimes 7 very ‘detailed’ questions. ‘Those questions could have come in 3 weeks earlier’ but ‘they come in at the last minute and expect an answer’. Said that ‘we would never ever try to stifle debate or the opportunity for questions’ but ‘it’s got to be reasonable’. Said that public questions ‘tend to be about a range of things’ and he believes that they should be ‘about the agenda’. Everything ‘else can come through as a question, a letter, as an email’ to councillors. He ‘never shirks’ his responsibility in answering questions.
ESAKOFF: agreed with speakers. Said that ‘public questions have been abused’ and that some years ago a question came in from an empty ‘block of land’ as the address, so ‘it does happen’. ‘We are available pretty much 24/7’. Said that on some days she gets lots of calls and on other days it might only be one. As for questions on the agenda, well people could have rung councillors ‘right up to 7.30 and asked us’ rather than waiting until the end of the meeting to get the answer.
DELAHUNTY: moved a very long amendment which included: NOTICE OF MOTION; PUBLIC PARTICIPATION; PUBLIC ADDRESSING COUNCIL; QUESTIONS FROM PUBLIC WITHOUT NOTICE. Lobo seconded.
DELAHUNTY: said that there had been a report prepared on ‘best practice’ in September 2013. Said that Glen Eira was ‘the only council in Victoria not to have the ability to raise a notice of motion’. Her motion isn’t about changing the local law ‘immediately’ but is seeking public input. A notice of motion doesn’t ‘take away the ability’ in any shape or form for a request for a report. It doesn’t stop councillors from researching whatever they want, but it does give ‘your elected representatives’ what other councillors have got. Said that ‘you may hear arguments’ about political motivations. She is ‘seeking standards’ and giving residents the opportunity to bring issues ‘to the fore’. ‘It gives us the ability to put something on the agenda without the faint ability to put something on the agenda’ where ‘we have to actually wait for 2 meeting cycles’. Now they have to call for a report, have a discussion, ‘use officers’ time’ when ‘we know what it is that we’ve researched anyway’. ‘we’re all adults, we’re all capable of getting a grasp on issues’. Officers’ time means ‘ratepayers’ money’. This doesn’t happen in other councils and ‘the sky has not fallen in’. Arguments about political purposes is totally wrong – ‘it has nothing to do with political purposes’. ‘It shows a complete disrespect for your elected representatives and disrespect for the public’. Wanted more public participation since ‘local government should be engaging, should be closest to the people’. Questions without notice from the public is like what Esakoff said about receiving phone calls and emails everyday, ‘so why shouldn’t this be another forum where those questions can be answered?’ Said that with questions without notice from the public this would ‘echo’ what other councils are doing and also what Glen Eira keeps saying to government about ‘wanting to be the closest to the community’. Said she remembered the resolution about skyrail where council said ‘it is not fair that residents do not get to voice their opinion to their elected representatives in a group forum’ and this is ‘the exact same thing that happens here’. ‘It is not fair that residents come into this chamber’ and can’t voice their opinion or ask questions in the same way that they can on the phone and via email. ‘It is inconsistent’ that you can do this via phone and not in chamber.
LOBO: said that ‘local laws can be created as a web’ by ‘spiders’ and when ‘the spider is the author of the local law it doesn’t apply to the people’. ‘our local law has been represented by the same councillors every year’. In a democracy there should be ‘sharing’ amongst councillors and to a ‘lay person’ so ‘we don’t have clauses that can be taken against someone who is not liked’. Was not sure if this is ‘democracy’ and people should check over the last ten years how voting has been taken in council. ‘The power should be with the gallery and not with us’. ‘we are here to represent the grassroots’ and if ‘we can’t do this then councils should be closed’.
LIPSHUTZ: said that Delahunty ‘sees the world through rose coloured glasses’. Asked the CEO if what Delahunty said about Glen Eira being the only council without a notice of motion whether this is ‘true or false’.
CEO: said that ‘I need to check for absolute accuracy’ but she understands that ‘there are other councils who do not have notice of motion’ or if they do have this, then ‘they have particular rules around how and when those particular notices of motion can be used’.
LIPSHUTZ: in ‘theory’ notice of motion is good and ‘in theory every councillor should be able to raise notice of motion’. ‘In practice it doesn’t work’. People do use it for ‘political purposes’. Councillors are Liberal, Labor and others and people have political views and that’s ‘all right’.
DELAHUNTY: point of order on relevance.
LIPSHUTZ: said it was ‘relevant’.
Delahunty again raised the point of order and asked Pilling to ‘rule on the point of order’ and that Lipshutz should be ‘silent’ until the point of order is ruled upon.
PILLING: asked Lipshutz ‘to stay on the subject’.
LIPSHUTZ: ‘it is a political issue and the fact is’ that ‘any councillor’ can use this for ‘personal reasons one after the other and hijack the meeting’. In Kingston and Monash there were notices of motion ‘one after the other’ and they ‘stayed up to 3am in the morning’. ‘It can be used to hijack meetings’ and even though ‘we might like to think’ it won’t happen, ‘it does happen’. Also when people raise the notice of motion there is ‘no background to it’ and ‘without real research’. He brought up the issue of a ‘councillor wanting to close the mulch heap’ and he ‘came along with his own data’. ‘It was false but he did convince the majority of councillors at the time that he was correct’ but only ‘later was it discovered that it was false’. If they had had ‘guidance and a report from the officers’ and ‘had the research we would have made the right decision’. Requests for a report are a ‘better way forward’ because ‘we then get the research’. Lobo talks about ‘democracy’ and ‘we have what’s called an election’ and ‘councillors are elected to make decisions’. ‘That doesn’t mean we make decisions without consulting’. What ‘we don’t want’ is for councillors to ‘sit around this table and the meeting is hijacked by questions from the public or by councillors’. Delahunty laughed and Lipshutz then said ‘I don’t think it is very funny and I ask’ the mayor to tell her to ‘behave herself’. More laughter from Delahunty and the gallery. Councillors make decisions on planning and other things that ‘affect people’s lives’ and they have to ‘make those decisions fairly and squarely’. They can’t do that because a ‘councillor or councillors decide they want to have a personal agenda’ and they want to ‘move something which is in their party political or personal interests’. On public questions the ‘same people invariably are asking the same questions’. You don’t see large numbers of people coming along to ask questions. Every councillor is available. ‘It is very easy to get a group of people to come together to hijack a meeting and make sure this council is not workable’.
HYAMS: accepted Delahunty saying that she wasn’t against the motion but that that was a ‘pre-emptive’ move for her motion.
DELAHUNTY: point of order that ‘that is improper’.
PILLING: asked Hyams to speak to the topic
HYAMS: public consultation is ‘reasonable’ but ‘when you think something is not going to definitely work’ then you shouldn’t put it out to public consultation and Delahunty’s amendment ‘is in that category’. ‘We don’t need notice of motion. We have better ways of doing things’ like requests for reports. It’s better that officer reports come to council even if we ‘don’t follow officer advice’ as with the example from Lipshutz’s mulch heap where ‘we didn’t follow officer advice and possibly we should have’. All very well for Delahunty to say that ‘we’re all adults’ but sometimes ‘we don’t know what we don’t know’ so officer reports are important. Repeated the example of Marrickville council who voted to boycott Israeli products and then had to rescind the motion when they realised their computer systems were reliant on Israeli products. There’s always room for improvement but ‘the way we have it now’ is better because other councils that have notice of motion don’t have requests for reports. In the past people had to write their public questions down before the meeting started and the vast majority were then taken on notice for answers. So this means ‘how do you unask a question’ or stop someone from asking a question if ‘they’ve got the microphone?’ People would get ‘frustrated’ because they’ve sat there throughout the meeting only to ask a question that wouldn’t be allowed or get it on notice of motion later. The amendments are ‘trying to make sure’ that unless there is a ‘massive deluge all questions get answered’. Said that this issue isn’t ‘anywhere near’ what skyrail is. Also all recommendations from the Local Laws advisory committee ‘had to come to a council meeting’.
SOUNNESS: ‘My name is Thomas and I’m here to represent you!!!!’. Said the motion is about ‘how you and us communicate’. On notice of motion he ‘hadn’t made up’ his mind as yet because that could be a case of making up his mind before due process. Couldn’t see why notice of motion couldn’t sit alongside request for a report. Strong opinion from community and this is what council should be ‘considering or not considering’ so this is an ‘opportunity’ to get feedback and ‘see what the community wants’ then council can ‘debate’ the issue. ‘Until we have the evidence in front of us’ he didn’t think that they can make the decision about whether something is right or wrong. Even if the motion fails people can ‘still write in’ and say they want notice of motion and the other things. And ‘councillors are encouraged not to have a closed mind on things that are put forward’. Originally he was ‘mildly against’ notice of motion and now ‘I am mildly for it’. Thought that the ‘community should be given the opportunity to consider another way of communicating’ with council.
HYAMS: asked the CEO for her understanding of Winky-pop and whether this applied to things like the local law
CEO: said that her ‘understanding’ is that the Winky-pop decisions ‘relates to actions in terms of administrative decisions’ and delegations and ‘powers of the council rather than the types of discussions we are contemplating this evening’.
DELAHUNTY: wanted clarification from Pilling as to whether or not Lipshutz said that a meeting is ‘hijacked’ if a councillor uses notice of motion
PILLING: said his ‘recollection’ was that ‘issues can be raised by councillors’ to ‘score points’.
DELAHUNTY: asked Hyams whether he ‘was aware’ that her amendment allows for notice of motion’ must be given 6 business days before the meeting’ so that discussion can take place in assemblies. Also asked asked Hyams if something goes out for consultation that he doesn’t think is a good idea and people say it is a good idea whether he would ‘reject that’?
HYAMS: said he didn’t think ‘I said’ that there wouldn’t be time to discuss the notice of motion. On Delahunty’s second question ‘I can’t answer that’ because it is ‘hypothetical’.
MAGEE: on public questions said that this isn’t something that he would ‘probably support’ because if there were 150 people wanting to ask questions then ‘that would make our council unworkable’. But he would support a ‘time frame before council meeting’ which was informal and direct questions from the gallery. Thought that ‘during a council meeting is very problematic’. He will ‘reserve’ judgement until he hears ‘from the public’ but he thinks that if the ‘majority ‘ want to ask questions at a council meeting ‘I may still vote against that’. ‘I can only do what I believe is right’. The ‘business of council is very important’. They run a $150 million dollar business and ‘operates 24 hours a day’ and the council meetings are to ‘conduct the business of council’. ‘Answering questions from the public, that happens 365 days a year’. However, ‘I would welcome that interaction before a council meeting’. On notice of motion that has ‘raised it head’ countless times and there are good reasons for it as well as ‘opposition’ and ‘it can be misused’. ‘If you think that’s a way of getting things through without all the information coming out, why wouldn’t you do that?’ With an officer’s report you ‘get all the pros and cons, the costs’.
AMENDMENT PUT TO VOTE AND LOST
VOTING FOR AMENDMENT – DELAHUNTY, LOBO, SOUNNESS, MAGEE
VOTING AGAINST – LIPSHUTZ, HYAMS, ESAKOFF, PILLING, HO
Glen Eira Debates 
April 27, 2016 at 2:32 PM
There’s so much here that I would need 20 pages to make a decent comment on what was said. A summary of my thinking will have to do.
1. What on earth does Lipshutz mean by “the same sort of people”? Even if this is true then the chair has the power to declare such questions inappropriate if they are defamatory and so on. Being “embarrassed” is the least viable reason why an entire system should be changed. If council is “embarrassed” by something then it would be a good thing for them to answer the question and allay people’s doubts wouldn’t it?
2. No one who has ever dealt with council could really believe that getting a letter or email back from a councillor is the same thing as putting in a public question and making them accountable for what they say. I know I’ve emailed certain councillors and never got a response from them or if I was lucky enough to get an answer it was always “I have been advised” and speaking for the whole group – never the individual councillor.
3. Pilling is entirely useless. Delahunty should not have to tell him to make a ruling and then Lipshutz continues on his merry way with what he was saying before. Pilling should have shut him up immediately and told him to sit down. Adore the bit about asking Pilling to tell Delahunty to “behave”. 5 year olds could do better than this.
4. All the comments about the mulch heap are straight out lies. There was a scientific report done but the contamination in the mulch was never released. Penhalluriack even went to vcat to try and get Newton to hand this over.
5. If all of them are so worried about notice of motion or having council meetings running to 3am if people are allowed to ask questions then what about taking the question on notice and how many times in the past ten years has there been more than 10 questions per council meeting. You could count this on one hand most likely.
6. Putting questions and answers into the minutes is very important. The public record is what matters and not the crap that individuals are told one on one. If council is scared of being fully accountable then they are hiding something.
7. The new ceo is a great disappointment with her answers here too. Winky pop didn’t have anything to do with “administrative” actions but how a councillor voted after he made it clear what his position was on a planning matter. I’m worried that we’ve got another Newton in charge.
April 27, 2016 at 3:50 PM
Wow an empty block of land. A hanging offence. Hey Maggie does that mean that whoever owns the land and is a ratepayer and voter and because they don’t have a house on the land that they can’t ask a bloody question? Nolaw says you have to have a house and live on the land. Pathetic pathetic pathetic.
April 27, 2016 at 5:48 PM
Notices of motion give councillors the ability to get something onto the agenda. All they need is someone to second them. That means that the issue is out in the open, discussed in council chamber and formally voted upon. This is exactly what I suspect Lipshutz and his friends do not want. They want secrecy and back room wheeling and dealing that suits their power base and not what residents want. If they can control what gets discussed in the open then they are home free. It is a disgrace and I think that Ho has already shown which side he is on.
April 27, 2016 at 7:59 PM
Correct. Applying gags to potentially “independent” voices is the name of the game. All the better if the scheming remains hidden and does not attract adverse media attention such as guns in the park. If done in secret then this risk is averted. My query would be – what does Ms McKenzie think about all of this? Is she biding her time? Or is she a disciple of Newton and encourages such a process? The interesting bit is that her ex council (Mitchell) does have notice of motion and even structure plans – both major taboos in Glen Eira.
April 27, 2016 at 6:32 PM
FYI – the meeting procedure section of the Local Law as it currently stands is far from resident friendly. We repeat what we have said in the past and urge all those considering putting in a submission to highlight the following points –
Amendment changes to include:
Right to dissent from chairman’s ruling and to call for a vote of council when this occurs
Advisory committee minutes be included in the specifications for minutes so that there is uniformity across all committees
regular open forums for Q & A as other councils have
Public questions to come at start of council meetings
Notice of motion of course
Chair must stand down if he/she wishes to move a motion
All requests for reports be tabled at full council meetings – not just councillor briefings as has happened in the past (thereby avoiding scrutiny)
No change to public questions process
The right of reply be available to councillors without prior notice
April 27, 2016 at 6:52 PM
Well done Delahunty. You make more sense than the whole bunch lumped together.Maybe if more councillors laughed at Lipshutz he would shut up or get some sense knocked into him.
April 28, 2016 at 8:46 AM
Delahunty wants a NOM facility so she can introduce items like gay marriage and refugees into the council agenda. Far more colourful that road, rates and rubbish. This gets her name in the paper. That is the goal.
April 27, 2016 at 7:04 PM
I attended last night’s meeting after having first written to my 3 ward councillors to point out that the report re changing Local Law didn’t disclose what the need was for several of the changes or what Council was hoping to achieve through them.
The debate was tedious. Few councillors remained on topic, and none felt comfortable about stating clearly their objectives. Cr Lipshutz and Cr Magee both insulted residents. Points of order were ignored by the Mayor. Cr Delahunty said up front she didn’t like several of the proposed changes but wouldn’t oppose the motion as it would give the public an opportunity to comment.
Where things really went off the rails was when she moved an amendment—the conservative bloc rejected those changes en mass, saying they didn’t want them and therefore the public shouldn’t be consulted about them. At the end of the conflab there was still no clarity about the purpose or general purport of the changes, nothing that could form the basis of an explanatory document to assist with consultation.
Later on there was a series of public questions concerning Skyrail. Council’s responses were repetitive yet uninformative. LXRA has informed me that Council has never raised the issue of residential amenity standards, with their main concern being who would pay for maintenance of the new open spaces.
April 27, 2016 at 7:09 PM
Dear Resident,
since so much was made of councillors ‘availability 24/7’ and how superb they were in answering all questions (letter, email, phone) did you by any chance receive responses from all three councillors? Could you also please inform us who these councillors were?
April 27, 2016 at 9:43 PM
I’m in Rosstown ward [Crs Esakoff, Pilling, Ho]. They haven’t so far responded to my email. I did get the impression from last night that they disagreed with me when I expressed the view that requests for changes should be accompanied by a clear statement of the need, objectives, and outcomes expected if those changes are adopted.
April 27, 2016 at 8:24 PM
Ha Ha, Yes imagine trying to get corruption onto the agenda or bullying by a council officer on the agenda via a their (cap in hand) reporting system, from the very person/s that maybe the people responsible for that situation.
I’m hearing echo’s of the royal commission proceeding into the institutionalised cover-ups on sexual crimes against children.
April 27, 2016 at 8:51 PM
Cr.Tang never answered a email in his life as a councillor, haven’t these 5 Liberal Partly knuckle head Councillors got the understanding that the system doesn’t revolve their personal bird-brains worlds. The system should be built around democratic values for now and for the future.
Experience tells me where they is consistent suppression of public interest there is corruption lurking in the shadows
April 27, 2016 at 10:09 PM
Even the libs can’t be too happy with this lot. Plenty of lib dominated councils have got notice of motion.
April 27, 2016 at 10:23 PM
Magee is a proven Dodo who has no idea what he is talking about. A complete waste of space. (MODERATORS: sentence deleted) It is good to read
that Souness Delahunty and Lobo are seen as transparent and no hidden agendas and they are seen to believe the meaning of real reps of residents.
There is something smelling in Glen Eira and hopefully the concerned authorities will take note of the illegal acts.
April 27, 2016 at 10:30 PM
Cr. Slipshod, when has it been a crime to want council business minuted, every single organisation I have been involved in has no problems with minuting their affairs.
Why the conservative councillors want to deal with everyone under the table, away from scrutiny and accountability is a mystery to me, what have they got to hide? Years of chamber boasting has turned the Liberals including Pilling and Magee in petty megalomaniacs
If this delusional clampdown is the best they can think of, I recommend all their correspondence entered into as a councillor be tabled at each council meeting.
Openness dissipates all doubts, or sunlight is the best disinfectant
What are they scared of?
April 27, 2016 at 10:38 PM
Hyams never bothers revealing the full truth if it doesn’t suit his purpose. I took a keen interest in the Marrickville saga. They moved a motion to boycott Israeli goods but not holus bolus. They did rescind the resolution because they got every politically correct nutter telling them that they should and that was from federal, state, and local mps with threats along the way. The council also said that they wouldn’t lose all the money claimed if they did boycott since the software wasn’t part of what they intended to boycott. These facts don’t serve Hyams purpose so naturally he leaves them out. That shows great integrity and commitment to telling the whole truth.
April 28, 2016 at 8:12 AM
Hyam’s is anti non Semitic, this type of behaviour is routine for him, he never lets the truth get in the way of big noting Israel (MODERATORS: rest of sentence deleted)
April 28, 2016 at 10:58 AM
Why is this councillor weird and what are his contributions to the Glen Eira city council? Does any one know the good, the bad and the ugly contributions to the community? It would be worth reading as he has claimed to be on Council for 13 unlucky years for the communities.
April 28, 2016 at 6:07 PM
My most recent experience of calling a councillor is that it took 2 weeks for them to respond, and that was while I was in a noisy supermarket 30 minutes before they went into an Assembly of Councillors. Dreadful. I had called to point out that Council’s response to a public question didn’t provide the information requested and wanted to know why Council didn’t provide the information. I never did get an explanation.
The mayor at the time, Cr Magee, remains responsible for the responses provided under his name. All councillors though ultimately share collective responsibility, as if they are aggrieved with a response they can make a statement to explain why. Silence is tacit consent.