Councillor Performance

Archived Posts from this Category

March 20, 2012

Governance: How Low Can You Go?

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance
[12] Comments 

The last part of tonight’s council meeting plummeted to new depths that we thought impossible even for this council. But it seems that where good governance and fair play is concerned there is no limit to how low one can go! We are referring in particular to the Councillor Question items and the Requests for Reports.

Cr. Forge’s question (printed in the agenda) basically asked for the costs related to the Penhalluriack Councillor Code of Conduct, the O’Neill Report charges and a few other ‘incidentals’.

HYAMS; ‘approximately $65,000….to date….(can’t give full estimate because that’s dependent) ‘on Cr Penhalluriack’s conduct….(stated that it was) ‘relevant that all expenditure … due to Cr. Penhalluriack’s  behaviour (and all councillors including Forge) ‘resolved to refer Cr Penhalluriack to the Councillor Conduct Panel…..behaviour towards officers which was found to be inappropriate’ (by O’Neill)…included behaviour….(which) breached …conflict of interest provisions of Local Government Act….(Penhalluriack’s choice to refer this to VCAT also) ‘signifianctly increased the costs’.

Went on to state in answer to the second part of Forge’s question that he ‘was not responsible’ for giving advice to Council’s solicitors. …’it is up to …officers to give effect to …resolutions….(officers may consult with councillors but )’that is up to them’. Hyams concluded that he doesn’t ‘propose’ any mechanism to ensure that councillors are kept apprised of what’s going on.

No councillor commented on this response!

Penhalluriack then asked a question of his own relating to the Audit Committee Annual Report and where it was tabled at a council meeting. He went on to ask: how long Lipshutz, Gibbs and McLean had been on the Audit Committee and why the appointments for the latter were held in camera.

HYAMS: Responded that the audit committee’s report was included in Council’s 2010/11 Annual Report. He then read out the entire entry from the Annual Report. Went on to state that this had been ‘circulated to all councillors in August 2011′ (and adopted at Special Council Meeting in October 2011)…’all 9 councillors were present; the resolution was unanimous….(then stated that the audit committee itself had approved a report in 2011 and that Magee, Lipshutz, Esakoff, Forge and Penhalluriack were present)….’all 5 councillors received the report before the meeting’….’it will be included in the agenda for next ordinary Council Meeting in the same form that you have had for 4 months…..’

Went on to explain the composition of the Audit Committee and that these people are all appointed by council resolution. Lipshutz has been on the committee since 2006. Gibbs since 1998 and reappointed in February 2009; Mclean a member since 1999 and reappointed in February 2011.’ You voted in favour on all four occasions’….’Section 89 of the Local Government Act provides’ for matters regarding personnel to be ‘in camera’….the process …tonight is identical (to that done on) all previous occasions’.

ADVISORY COMMITTEES

Lipshutz was reappointed to the Audit Committee together with Lobo. Again no councillor uttered a word on this continued reappointment.

We will provide further details on what occurred in the coming days.

 

March 18, 2012

A Little Cost Accounting!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Service Performance
[6] Comments 

From the Agenda Items for next Tuesday –

11.3 Councillor questions

“VCAT Proceedings – Councillor Conduct Panel .

It has recently come to my attention that Cr.Penhalluriack is appearing before VCAT in a full day’s compulsory conference on the 12th April 2012.

I have 2 questions which I wish to address to the Mayor in relation to the OH&S enquiry, the CEO Contractual Arrangements Special Committee, the Councillor Conduct Panel and VCAT proceedings, all in relation to Councillor Penhalluriack.

The first question relates to legal costs and is in 2 parts:

First, what legal costs have been paid to the Council’s solicitors in relation to these matters to date?

Secondly, what cost estimate has been provided by the Council’s solicitors in respect of the future conduct of this matter?

My second question relates to what mechanism had been put in place to provide instructions to the Council’s solicitors in relation to the conduct of this matter. In particular, given that the decision to refer the matter to a Councillor Conduct Panel was made by Councillors:

Are you responsible for providing instructions to the Council’s solicitors?

What mechanisms do you propose to ensure that Councillors are kept briefed on the preparation and the conduct of the proceedings?

Yours Sincerely,

Cr. Cheryl Forge.”

COMMENT

What a pathetic state of affairs that a question such as the above has to be given ‘with notice’ – otherwise it would not have appeared in the agenda! The other sad aspect of such a question is that if it has to be asked then councillors obviously do not know the answer! In other words, our money is being spent willy-nilly, and only administrators have any idea of how much these shenanigans are costing!

We look forward to the verbal and written gymnastics that this question will undoubtedly produce. Will the ‘response’, for example, only provide data for ‘solicitors’ and not barristers? Will the ‘brief’ given to councillors be ‘brief’? As a safeguard, we urge Cr. Forge to ask for copies of ALL invoices from all solicitors, barristers, and monkey’s uncles!

 

March 13, 2012

Customer Service Or Merely Plugging The Holes?

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Service Performance
[13] Comments 

Another email from our disgruntled Rowan St. resident –

“Good afternoon Jamie- I’ve just received in the mail  a Notice from GE Council that Road Works (road profiling & new asphalt) will be undertaken in Rowan Street Elsternwick (but just between Shoobra & Orrong Rods)- interestingly not in Rowan Street over Orrong Rd.

I would like to know how much this will cost ratepayers. Also I would like to know how much the ‘Keep Left Roundabout sign’ cost to erect? If you recall I  reported the incident where the sign was totally flattened by a speeding driver (because there are no speed limit signs or any other deterrent for drivers to stop them driving at speeds they wish!).
The fact Council is doing the road works is astounding me – where is the rationale for this action, and how will this action improve road safety for local residents, other pedestrians & pets?
In fact this situation presents a great opportunity for Council to actually put in (at the same time some key safety measures in this stretch of Rowan Street, for example, expanding the boundary of the roundabout to ensure drivers slow down at that point, or erecting one speed hump at the downward slope in the street towards Orriong Rd, or erecting speed limit sign & CHEAPER for ratepayers as you are already doing works here!). Any one of these measures would have demonstrated a Council that is strategic, thinks broadly & spends ratepayers $s cost effectively, instead of adhoc, piecemeal & with disregard for spending ratepayers $s wisely, as this action actually shows.
In fact it probably would have been cheaper by now for Council to have erected one speed hump than have to replace the above mentioned sign.
What is needed is measures that slow down traffic in local streets, not improving the surface so that cars can travel as fast as they wish.
I look forward to your reply to the questions I posed above, at the earliest opportunity.
I note I have not received any response from you to my other 2 emails.  Please advise when I can expect to receive your response to these?
Thanks,
 

March 12, 2012

Same Horse, Different Jockey!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance
[3] Comments 

Since becoming Mayor, Jamie Hyams has not exactly covered himself with glory in his chairing of meetings. This is most surprising given his legal background and obvious penchant for a little pedantry.  With these credentials, one could be forgiven for hoping that the general running of such meetings would have proven to be far more in line with good governance. However, old habits and ties obviously die hard as evidenced at the last council meeting.

Hyams did not disallow what we strongly suspect were several requests for reports that did not adhere to the ‘no surprises’ policy of Council. In other words, there was no requisite written notice.

He declared a matter as Urgent business without putting it to the vote in the first place, and secondly, the ‘urgent business’ referred to was the VCAT decision regarding the Penhalluriack Code of Conduct matter which occurred weeks earlier and hence could not have been deemed as urgent business according to council’s local law – ie. the event/circumstance/situation did not eventuate between the printing of the agenda and the night of the council meeting.

It thus looks like residents are in for more of the same – sham governance; sham accountability, and no transparency. For the winner of a ‘two-up’ competition (versus being ‘elected’), this is not an auspicious start to his mayoralty!

 

March 10, 2012

Deck Shuffling On The Titanic!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance
Comments Off on Deck Shuffling On The Titanic! 

March is upon us and that means deciding which councillors go onto which committees. We won’t cover all of them, but here are a couple of suggestions for what have been the most contentious groupings in the past few years:

AUDIT COMMITTEE – Penhalluriack and Lobo. Reasons – these are the only two councillors who have had direct experience of business and finance. Both Penhalluriack and Lobo have in the past stated the need for ‘cost benefit analyses’ as part of everyday council procedures and in particular when matters come up for decision.

Further, it would be absolutely unforgiveable if Lipshutz was on this committee. That would make it about 8 years straight for the same individual. This goes against the state guidelines and is certainly not what we would regard as correct probity. We’ve commented many times already on the continual reappointments of Gibbs & McLean – not strictly ‘kosher’ and needs to be addressed. Never again should councillors allow such decisions to be made in secret and without subsequent public announcement. And again we remind readers that the Audit Committee’s Annual Report has still not been made public.

RACECOURSE COMMITTEE: Given the track record of this committee and their total cave in to the MRC, we advocate for its abandonment. All councillors should have a say in what happens – not just four!

FINANCE COMMITTEE – we are not even sure if this committee exists anymore, since no meetings have been recorded for the past few years. It is absolutely essential that such a committee is functioning and active. Its role in other councils is to oversee the general strategic financial planning and to maintain independence from the Audit Committee. Glen Eira desperately needs such a committee.

LOCAL LAWS COMMITTEE – Lawyers are not necessarily an advantage on such a committee. What is far more essential is common sense. Council has enough lawyers to handle the semantics. What is required is a group of councillors who view laws in a far more pragmatic and community conscious manner. We suggest that the councillor reps on this be: Forge, Tang, Penhalluriack

CONSULTATION COMMITTEE: again, it is essential that those councillors who sit on such committees actually believe in the principles of genuine consultation and transparency. This has not occurred.

Finally, true transparency and good governance will only occur when:

  • All advisory committees (with the exception of Audit/Finance) have external community representation
  • When advisory committee meetings publish agendas and are open to the public to attend
  • When advisory committee meetings – their processes and reporting requirements – are incorporated into the Local Law’s Meeting Procedures. Currently they are not, allowing such committees to operate as they wish
  • When reporting processes are consistent and timely and minutes are a true and accurate representation of what occurred. Currently minutes are a farce, frequently doctored, and tabled up to 6 months later.
 

March 9, 2012

Impervious Surfaces & Elections

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Planning
[8] Comments 

Last week’s council meeting saw councillors (with the exception of Penhalluriack) knock on the head the officers’ recommendation that Council apply to the minister to reduce the 80% mark for impervious surfaces in developments. The recommendation had been that this occur only in Minimal Change Areas. Via a motion moved by Tang and seconded by Pilling, the vote was to extend this to Housing Diversity Areas as well.  We certainly congratulate councillors on this move. However, we also have to wonder why it’s taken so long and could it possibly have anything to do with the upcoming election?

The general thrust of the presented arguments was that Council should at least try to cover all of the municipality and if the Minister knocked back the proposed amendment, then council could revert to its original idea of only implementing this for the Minimal Change Areas. Ostensibly, a logical argument. We just scratch our heads at the lack of consistency in councillors’ arguments over the past few years. The constant refrain against introducing any (innovative) change has always been

  • Amendments take too long
  • The Minister will knock it back
  • Too expensive to implement/oversee
  • Glen Eira shouldn’t go it alone

Suddenly such arguments were conspicuous by their general absence. Now it was all about residents’ concerns, flooding, climate change, and increased development. Whilst these are all true, wouldn’t it be nice if ‘residents’ concerns’ featured in ALL COUNCILLOR DELIBERATIONS and not just 7 months out from an election – especially when some councillors keep telling groups that they won’t be moved by ‘lobbying pressure’ (ie. Victory Park Pavilion debate).

To illustrate the potential importance of such an amendment – and the lack of real ESD (Environmental Sustainable Design) policies in Glen Eira – below are two images. A ‘before and after’. Please note that the 20 to 30 foot tree visible in the first image has not been replaced – and we have been told that it won’t – as well as the extent of concrete everywhere.  The second unit (not pictured) has approximately 2 square metres available for planting and not a single blade of grass either! We are not commenting on aesthetics, or the rights of owners to ‘express themselves’. What we are saying is that much, much more needs to be done by this council – particularly in terms of tree registers, moonscaping, etc. Elections should not be the spur for sudden pangs of ‘conscience’!

 

March 2, 2012

What Very, Very, VERY Expensive Games We Play!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Service Performance
[11] Comments 

From the minutes of 28th February 2012.

OUTCOME OF CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN CONFIDENTIAL ITEMS

Item 10 Urgent Business

Crs Hyams/Tang

That a matter relating to the VCAT matter between Council and Cr Penhalluriack be considered as an item of Urgent Business.

The MOTION was put and CARRIED.

(a) Crs Hyams/Lipshutz

1. That Council place on the public record the resolution for Item 12.5 of the Ordinary Council Meeting of November 2, 2011, relating to a Councillor Conduct Panel, other than paragraph 5 which relates to legal advice, and all attachments.

2. That the following facts be placed on the public record:

  • As a result of concerns that some of Councillor Penhalluriack’s conduct towards Council officers and staff may cause Council to be in breach of its occupational health and safety obligations to provide a safe work place, Council unanimously resolved to engage a solicitor with expertise in occupational health and safety to investigate these concerns.
  •  As a summary of the investigation report records, some of Councillor Penhalluriack’s conduct towards Council officers and staff was inappropriate. The summary recommended, among other things, that Councillor Penhalluriack be referred to a Councillor Conduct Panel to review his behaviour towards officers, his conduct during the investigation with respect to confidentiality and his compliance with clauses 4.5, 5.2, 5.9 and 5.12 of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct.
  • Councillor Penhalluriack participated in various Council discussions and determinations in relation to the above matters. Councillors believed that this conduct breached the conflict of interest provisions of the Local Government Act. Those councillors present therefore unanimously resolved, at the Ordinary Council Meeting of 2 November 2011, to make an application to a Councillor Conduct Panel and to seek a finding of misconduct against Councillor Penhalluriack for these alleged breaches.
  • Councillor Penhalluriack denies these allegations and exercised his right to refer the matter to VCAT for determination. While Councillor Esakoff, as then mayor, was appointed as Council’s representative for the purposes of the Councillor Conduct Panel and in accordance with the legislation that states that the applicant must be a councillor or councillors, once the matter was referred to VCAT, it was possible, and therefore appropriate, that Glen Eira City Council be named as the applicant.

That this resolution be incorporated in the public minutes of this Meeting.

9.45pm Cr Penhalluriack left the Chamber.

The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously.

ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING – MINUTES 2 NOVEMBER 2011

Item 12.5

LEGAL ADVICE COUNCILLOR CONDUCT PANEL

Enquiries: Peter Jones

Director Community Services

This item is confidential pursuant to s 89(2) (f) “legal advice”, and (h) “may prejudice the Council or any person” of the Local Government Act 1989.

10.45PM The CEO and Cr Penhalluriack left the Chamber.

Crs Lipshutz/Esakoff

1. That Council make an application to a Councillor Conduct Panel under section 81B(1) of the Local Government Act 1989 in respect of the conduct of Councillor Penhalluriack for alleged breaches of Councils code of Conduct and the Local Government Act in the form generally of the attached application. (Attachment 1 Application for the establishment of a Councillor Conduct Panel)

2. That Council seek a finding of misconduct against Cr. Penhalluriack.

3. That Council record that its internal dispute resolution process does not apply to this situation and that the matters are incapable of being resolved internally.

4. That Councillor Margaret Esakoff be appointed as Council’s representative for the purposes of the application to the Councillor Conduct Panel.

5. REDACTED.

REDACTED

AMENDMENT

Crs Hyams/Forge

Except that all references to a failure to declare a conflict of interest in relation to the mulch facility be removed from the application for the establishment of a Councillor Conduct Panel.

The AMENDMENT was put and CARRIED and on becoming the SUBSTANTIVE MOTION was again put and CARRIED unanimously.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Item 12.1

Crs Lipshutz/Pilling

That Council:

i) Note the Elster Creek Trail, including part of the shared path, encroaches onto the title of properties at 14 and 16 Hopkins Street, McKinnon.

ii) Note that the owners of 14 Hopkins Street intend to erect a new fence on the rear title boundary of this property.

iii) Note the owners of 16 Hopkins Street have applied to Council for a Town Planning Permit to subdivide this property into three lots including a lot along the rear. Further, that the owner agrees to gift the rear lot to Council to create a 1.5 metre buffer between the shared path and private property.

iv) Subject to approving the Town Planning Permit for the subdivision of 16 Hopkins Street, agrees to pay the owner all reasonable costs to prepare necessary plans and transfer the rear lot to Council.

v) Advise the owners of 14 and 16 Hopkins Street of Council’s decision including thanking the owners of 16 Hopkins Street for agreeing to gift the rear lot to Council.

vi) Incorporate this resolution in the public section of these minutes.

The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously.

 

 

March 1, 2012

Pavilions, Politics & Polling

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance
[21] Comments 

REQUESTS FOR REPORTS

Esakoff made two requests. First was about the ‘progress’ of consultation on the Booran Rd. Reservoir including dates for such meetings and that the report be tabled back at an Ordinary Council Meeting. Seconded Lipshutz.

Esakoff spoke about how the community in 2007/8 had made it clear that they wanted to have a say on the future of the site. There had been plenty and regular enquiries about ‘what was happening with this site’…..’a growing frustration’…..’I will not be forming any view until we hear from the community’ (She would then)’form a vision based on those views…..beginning of process of bringing it all to fruition…open space…concerns all of us…..(talked about more dense living and why this makes open space even more important)…..’site is unique, enormous’….

PENHALLURIACK: said he thought it was a ‘wonderful idea’ and supported the request.

MAGEE: asked if council would also be consulting with the State government as part of process as to their ‘plans for funding’. Hyams replied that it would be part of ‘funding process’ rather than ‘consultation process’.

ESAKOFF: said that once community had decided about the site that council would surely apply for grants.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

COMMENT: We find it fascinating that this item rears its ugly head at this particular point in time – an election year! Booran Rd. has been on the ‘agenda’ since at least early 2008. This comment appears on the Glen Eira Environment Group’s website: “Council has said that there will be a second round of public consultation possibly in 2010 to gauge the public needs relating to the end use of the reserve. FOGHR hope that this second attempt in public consultation will be transparent and fair and not be loaded to achieve a predetermined outcome as the first round of public consultation clearly was.” To the best of our knowledge, no such ‘consultation process’ has ever occurred. Yet, here we have the ‘sudden’ call for ‘consultation’!!!! Just plain amazing what an election year can throw up!

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

LIPSHUTZ: asked for a report on ‘options available” for removing the Council Depot from Caulfield Park and the costs involved. FORGE seconded. Lipshutz said that ever since he has become councillor people have been asking him about this issue and that the depot is ‘a blot’ on the park. ‘we’ve looked at that a number of times’….(now that the park has been ‘beautified’ the depot is) ‘in the wrong place and shouldn’t be there’…..’not suggesting that it should be done prior to anything else….’should be brought to the table’…(issue has come up again and again)…‘It’s not an electioneering issue as Cr. Penhalluriack has suggested.… ‘everyone’….’including Friends of Caulfield Park‘….’we may in fact decide that it is too much money’….’Cambden ward does not have too many issues’….’happy little vegemites in Cambden ward’….but certainly that is one issue…..

FORGE: ‘should be ashamed to have this blight in Caulfield Park….(thought that things can) ‘easily be relocated’….(hot house is) ‘derelict and not functional’….waste of space….(cars/trucks so that park has been) ‘inundated with….unnecessary function….(would like extension of aviary and more barbecues)….’I think the whole area could be much better….’beautified and cared for’…..

MAGEE: Asked Lipshutz to include a ‘joint venture’ in the report with neighbouring councils. Gave example of Bayside’s ‘huge depot’ and Glen Eira could share this and thus save costs for both. Both Lipshutz and Forge agreed to this amendment.

PENHALLURIACK: Penhalluriack spoke about an architect friend who had drawn up some plans for what might work at Booran Rd and that the depot could be moved there. Asked Newton to include these as part of presentation. Went on to call the depot ‘a horrible blight’ at Caulfield Park….(spoke about Friends of Caulfield Park’s latest newsletter which showed how cars and other vehicles are using the park even at night) ‘parked all over the place’….(Supported both Lipshutz’s and Magee’s ideas).

PASSED UNANIMOUSLY

COMMENT: Again, an old issue suddenly bursts forth. We have previously written on this as part of ‘untabled requests for reports’ by councillors. We reiterate that on 16th November 2007 Lipshutz and Whiteside had this passed in council: “That a report be prepared as to the Council depot in Caulfield Park being removed from Caulfield Park to another location in or out of the City.”. We also note that 4 years later Mr. Jack Campbell asked a public question as to the outcome of this report. The response led to a single line reference in an Annual Report that an ‘investigation had been undertaken’. End of story! Now, 5 years later we get a very similar request! We might well ask what Cr. Lipshutz has done in the interim and why now, this issue should again be brought up. Surely it has nothing to do with the fact that elections are around the corner? We would also like to make the point that it was NOT PENHALLURIACK WHO RAISED THE QUESTION OF AN ELECTION YEAR BUT LIPSHUTZ HIMSELF WHEN HE CLAIMED HE WAS ‘NOT CYNICAL’!!!! 

++++++++++++++++++++++++

ESAKOFF: asked for a report on ‘available options for the provision of female facilities’….’at Lord Reserve Pavilion’ and ‘baseball pavilion in E.E. Gunn Reserve’. (Read from phone). Hyams asked for seconder. Lipshutz seconded. After Lipshutz spoke briefly Hyams asked Burke to read out the request. Esakoff then spoke and said ‘I probably should have said change facilities and toilet facilities….'(NOTE: at this point Esakoff had switched off her phone). Tang then said that he thought that ‘Esakoff had changed the motion’ (in the last thing she said) and that this requires the ‘endorsement of the seconder’….(Lipshutz accepted the changes). Esakoff then spoke about ‘clarifying…by adding on a word’ ….’intention was’ (change and toilet facilities are) ‘two separate things’. Penhalluriack asked Burke to read the motion.

ESAKOFF: summed up by ‘reiterating the need throughout the community’ (about pavilions)….’not modern facilities’…’these two….placed above the Victory Park pavilion priorities….because of that deserve to be deliberated on…as much as we need to deliberate on Victory Park.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

COMMENT: We strongly suspect that 2 of these requests for reports (Lipshutz’s one on the park depot and the Esakoff one on pavilions) did not accord to council’s requirement of 24 hour notice in writing. Lipshutz mentioned a ‘foreshadowing’ of his request during an earlier part of the meeting. If notice had been given as required, there would be no need for such a statement.

Hyams claims that Esakoff’s request was ‘legitimate’ since it was part of the debate on the Victory Park item. No it wasn’t. Both of these other parks were part of a spurious argument designed to derail the motion under consideration – ie. Victory Park. Council’s resolution, which Hyams has quoted, reads in part that 24 hour notice must be given – “except where the motion arises during the course of the meeting or in extraordinary circumstances.” We see no ‘extraordinary circumstances’ here and no ‘motion’ was put ‘during the course of the meeting’. The Victory park item had been debated and decided. It was a closed matter. Esakoff’s request was therefore unlawful.

We also maintain that the confusion as to what the actual wording of the request for a report (as noted by Tang) is the result of Esakoff first reading from her phone, switching it off, and then not having the original wording in front of her. Again, this claim is verified by gallery observers. All in all, these episodes do nothing to instill confidence and trust in the workings of this council.

 

February 28, 2012

Victory By Stealth?

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance
[28] Comments 

In this post we are reporting on one single incident that occurred at tonight’s council meeting which illustrates fully the extent to which this Council and some of its councillors are prepared to ‘bend the rules’ and ignore good governance in order to serve the interests of their masters. We are referring to the ‘debate’ on the Victory Park ‘refurbishments’. A full account of this item will appear soon. However, here is the chronology of events:

  • Lobo’s motion to accept Option 2 and include the funding in discussions on the 2012/13 budget was passed 7 to 2.
  • Esakoff and Tang voted against the motion. Only after Lipshutz saw everyone else’s hand go up and he realised the cause was lost, did he sheepishly and belatedly raise his hand in support of the motion.
  • We now jump to Esakoff’s Request for a Report. The look on all councillors’ faces was priceless – this had clearly not been previously discussed in the Councillor Assembly. So much for the ‘no surprises’ policy and the recently passed resolution that councillors shouldn’t vote for something or even second something that had not been presented with 24 hours notice!! But let’s face it – Esakoff isn’t Penhalluriack!
  • What is even more alarming is that ESAKOFF READ OUT HER REQUEST FROM HER MOBILE PHONE. In other words, she received a text in the middle of a council meeting and as the good little servant she is, acted upon these directions. At least 3 members of the gallery can verify this.
  • We suspect that the message either came from Paul Burke or Jamie Hyams since both sit elevated in chamber and behind panels. In other words, we believe that Esakoff received clear directions on what to say and what to ask for!
  • Her Request for a Report related back to the Victory Park issue (her argument had been defeated) but the request was basically a reiteration of her previous rehearsed and probably trumped up argument. Again, we will provide the full details in time.

It is indeed a very, very sad day that certain councillors are nothing more than pawns under the direction of ‘faceless men’. As for adhering to council’s Local Law and recent resolutions re the ‘no suprises’ policy, it’s obvious that this only applies to certain councillors and not to others. Hyams’ silence here makes him equally complicit and culpable in this chicanery. As Chair of the meeting he should have ruled her Request for a Report out of order – unless of course, he was the author of the text message! Governance is truly moribund in Glen Eira and no amount of carefully arranged stage craft can hide this fact.

PS: It would also behove Cr Hyams to ensure that he disseminates the truth rather than what is good for public relations. He claimed that the Booran Rd Reserve had been ‘gifted’ to council and that Council now in fact owns the land. Not so. At least the State Government at the time had enough good sense not to hand public land over to Glen Eira – they simply appointed them as a Committee of Management. Residents deserve accuracy instead of continual spin – especially from the Mayor!

 

February 27, 2012

GESAC Basketball: The Saga Continues…..

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Service Performance
[29] Comments 

GESAC Update 26-Feb-2012
As reported previously, Council awarded use of GESAC to Oakleigh Warriors but made provision for McKinnon to use the courts on Saturdays in exchange for providing two of our existing courts to Oakleigh.  Oakleigh advised us that they would only be interested in Bentleigh or Brighton under such an arrangement.  We approached the principals of both schools to see whether they would be prepared to entertain a sub-lease arrangement with Oakleigh. Unfortunately, in each case the schools rejected the proposal as they prefer to continue to deal with one organisation.

We now expect to have discussions with Council about using any surplus capacity which Warriors are unable to utilise.  As you may be aware, the mayor and other councillors have advised that any space which Warriors are unable to occupy will first be offered to McKinnon and that Oakleigh cannot be allowed to sublet the space. We will be asking the council how we can have access to the surplus space.
Kind regards
MBA Executive Committee

 

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »