We’ve pinched part of a dialogue from the Facebook page of the Glen Eira Residents’ Action Group, featuring Newton Gatoff and Jamie Hyams.
HYAMS: It’s (election results) not unbelievable when you look at the latest community satisfaction survey, which is run by the State Government and therefore independent of Council. 56% said Council’s performance was very good or good and 11% said it was poor or very poor (32% said it was average and 1% didn’t know). The survey represents all age groups and suburbs.
GATOFF: I’m not sure the “community satisfaction survey” is borne out by the election result, but when a community elects a majority of new Councillors, it tends to reflect a call for change – In Kingston where the Council had structure plans, collaborative community decision-making and transparent Council meetings, the electorate re-elected every incumbent who stood. Yes, there are many good things being done by good Officers in Glen Eira who get well paid to perform. The Councillors can save their chest-beating for when we have a planning scheme which is fair and a level of governance which responds to the vocal minority. This is not a private club membership; it is an honourable non-executive role which should be performed with sincerity and humility but above all in reflection of the community’s wishes. So congratulations Jamie, you were re-elected again, and I for one will be calling on all three of my ward Councillors to give as much airtime to residents who need your help as you do to celebrating statistics. My commiserations to you Neil, it is not a generous process and I realise how hard it can be 1st time around, but I would invite you to remain a voice of sense and reason in whichever municipality you find yourself in.
HYAMS: Responding specifically to Newton, yes there were only four incumbents returned, but Michael Lipshutz resigned, Kelvin Ho had only been a councillor for a few months, Oscar generally didn’t identify with Council’s successes and while Thomas was a valued and constructive councillor, as an endorsed Greens councillor, his fortunes were more closely tied to the regard voters had for his party. That leaves only five of us whose re-election reflected the community regard for the Council, and four of us were re-elected. It was a great shame that Neil Pilling, who was a fair and diligent councillor who had the respect of his colleagues, was not returned.
Newton, having read your recent and earlier posts, and also listened to your performance on J-Air radio, there seems to be a theme that the wider community doesn’t really know what’s good for them, so Council should listen to the “vocal minority”. I find this to be quite elitist and undemocratic. I’m on council to represent the whole community, not just those who make the most noise. You also attack us for having implemented height limits in all residential zones, and for not having structure plans, the main feature of which would be height limits, in commercial zones. I would think that you can complain either about us having height limits or not having them, but when you complain about both, you just appear to be criticising us for the sake of it.
You say we brought in the zones without consultation and should therefore apologise, but the zones were the direct result of consultation in the form of the 2010/11 Planning Scheme Review, and apart from one block in Caulfield North, it was a direct translation from the Minimal Change and Housing Diversity Areas and Urban Villages to the corresponding Zones. I refer you to my earlier more detailed post on this issue, posted on 10 October. Councils tend not to consult when implementing to the letter the result of a previous consultation, and certainly don’t apologise for it.
I agree that we do need structure plans in commercial zones, and implementing these is one of the priorities of our planning scheme review. However, up till recently, our policies generally provided the necessary protection from overdevelopment in these areas, and this only changed when various VCAT members took it upon themselves to disregard these policies.
November 1, 2016 at 11:59 AM
I am calling on our new five councillors to recognise and accept that the past council has been in major error on the major issues like planning and traffic management. Hyams justifications for past actions are not acceptable to a large proportion of the municipality. A divided community is worse than a divided council. The solution as I see it is for these 5 good new people to take the reins and ensure that their election promises are fulfilled.
November 1, 2016 at 12:47 PM
I had a good read of the Glen Eira Residents Action Group web site, it sounds very like mutual appreciation society, all friends patting each other on the back. Propaganda at its best, yuck, yuck, yuck.
November 1, 2016 at 3:49 PM
Sounness gone because “his fortunes were more closely tied to the regard voters had for his party.” If Greens are out, then how could Davey get elected in Rosstown?
November 1, 2016 at 4:14 PM
Think the failure of Pilling to stay true to his “openness, transparency and accountability” mantra and his move to a reactionary hurt him. Sounness may have copped some of the collateral damage.
Pilling resigning from the Greens – without them he would never have been elected – but not doing the honorable thing and also resigning from Council also hurt him.
Hyams is a very good dissembler and propagandist. Sadly many people aren’t either sufficiently interested or aren’t sufficiently astute to see through this subterfuge.
November 1, 2016 at 9:41 PM
The word honorable and Pilling is the same sentence (phew) the only loyalty this man ever new is (MODERATORS: sentence and a half deleted) Pilling is now unemployed and he’ll be sniffing around the edges like a bloodhound for a return to the ratepayers purse, lets hope there are no retirements in Rosstown otherwise he will be back shinning Hyams shoes.
November 1, 2016 at 6:11 PM
Judging by these comments from Hyams I’m afraid that what we are going to get is a doubling of arrogance from this man. A friend who was scrutineering told me that his vote was totally polarised with number 1 vote being equalled by votes for 13 or 14. That is how he is perceived I would say by many in the community. It is now up to the 5 new councillors to ensure that this meglomaniac is put in his box and that a new collaborative apporoach to residents becomes the hallmark of this new council. Hyams is a liability.
November 1, 2016 at 6:43 PM
More than a liability – proven liar and defamer
November 1, 2016 at 6:46 PM
Analysing Tucker
A massive 13,97 electors did not bother themselves to vote or were disgusted with the whole situation!
Cr Hyams drew top or the donkey vote usually worth 5%.
Two candidates withdrew mysteriously making a mockery of the whole electoral system!
Bonney and Okotel polled 4.15 and 5.75 = 9.90
Mrs Okatel has now indicated twice that she picks up responsibilities readily and puts them down fast without a care in the world!
ADDED TOGETHER THIS FIGURE IS ALARMING 23.87%
This added to the donkey vote if someone else drew number one could have brought about a replacement for more councillors in that weard for sure.
One of course realises that preferences should resolve this strange sequence of events however I for one may have voted differently if the field had been presented more accurately.
November 1, 2016 at 9:09 PM
If you had of seem the ballot papers you would learn that your donkey vote theory is a myth. The donkey vote was rarely sighted. Any of the scrutineers would verify this fact. Many people vote randomly but they rarely start at the top especially when the list is so long. So there is no way that the donkey vote is worth 5%.
November 2, 2016 at 9:42 AM
Correct, I saw two. The preferences went everywhere no rhyme or rhythm to be seen, HTV’s recommendation didn’t seem that successful, as they would have been at an attendance election. Where you may expect 30 to 35% of voters to follow a HTV faithfully. I estimate 10% or less followed any HTV patterns.
It’s simple, Hyams and Esacoff out-poll everyone else by working harder and outspending everyone else. It’s not a secret. If you want to be elected you have to work at it. Do you really want some lazy person that does little and gets elected. The percentage figures generally, not alway, reflect the sum of the work expended.
November 2, 2016 at 11:43 AM
They didn’t out poll everyone else.
November 2, 2016 at 2:48 PM
well, not put together the didn’t, but on first preferences they did
November 2, 2016 at 10:07 AM
Jamie, you really think everyone is a D*ck Head to believe your crap? Are there people who cannot speak English but can write number 1-20? Are there people who consider Council elections as a non event? Do communities stick together to vote for one of their own? You do not live in Tucker Ward and use every loop hole to get you through. Always a reason for whatever you do. Were De’ath and Cade (your stooge) roped in for their benefits?
November 2, 2016 at 7:04 PM
More dissembling from Cr Hyams. He is contradicting both the 2010 Planning Review and the Liberal ex-Planning Minister Matthew Guy. The 2010 Review didn’t propose the changes Cr Hyams sought in his secret discussions with the Minister. In 2012 Cr Hyams on behalf of Council revealed there were no changes they wanted to make to the Planning Scheme. He also revealed that the expression “inappropriate development” was largely meaningless.
When Amendment C110 was imposed on us, Guy didn’t claim consultation was unnecessary because of the 2010 Review—he claimed it was unnecessary because of the Housing and Residential Development Strategy dating back to 2000. That Strategy has not been fully published [Part C containing all the “evidence” and supporting documentation is missing].
Amendment C110 [the new residential zones] changed the purposes, as-of-right uses, decision guidelines, and neighbourhood character criteria applying to land. Changing all these was not the outcome of the 2010 Review. Established residential areas whose amenity was being trashed asked for better protection. Council started down that track before abandoning the effort. More recently Council has argued against its own support for RGZ at VCAT, and lost. Hence 4-storey developments being erected next to single-storey dwellings on the fringes of Housing Diversity areas.
The Leader has previously reported on Cr Hyams’ views. Concerning the new Commercial Zones and lack of guidance provided in the Planning Scheme: “But it’s not as if you will get a six-storey building in a row of shops”. And “Cr Hyams said the council was happy with the changes to the residential zones as it would help in making decisions to maintain neighbourhood character”. Classic dissembling. Meanwhile, Council keeps losing at VCAT.
November 2, 2016 at 7:27 PM
Please note that the other excuse for not proceeding to community consultation on the introduction of the zones was officially stated in a response to a public question (minutes of 13th August 2013: page 710) – It is our firm belief that further consultation could not have resulted in a better outcome, and may well have had the opposite effect
November 2, 2016 at 8:59 PM
Hyams has to defend his actions. That means selling the public bullshit on top of bullshit. How anyone could have voted for him is beyond me.
November 2, 2016 at 11:00 PM
I have to laugh because Hyam’s fantasy world falls to bits, when someone like gleneria keeps a record of who said what and when.
Hyams thinks he is so good, but the reality is, he’s a hopeless propagandist, his personal motto must be something like “never say die” even if you have quite literally hung yourself with your own words.
He will now have to spend his time on council covering his bull under heaps of fresh misleading rhetoric.
I’m looking forwards to hearing more of his pearlers.