Glen Eira Debates

Glen Eira Council pretends that it cares about resident views. It pretends that it is transparent and accountable. It pretends that it not only listens to residents, but acts on their views. We believe that nothing could be further from the truth. All any resident has to do is to start questioning what information is in the public domain, and the format in which it is disseminated, to realise the smoke and mirrors and selective nature of disclosure consistently practised by this Council.

Section 223 of the Local Government Act provides residents with the opportunity to make submissions on important strategic and policy decisions such as budgets, community plans, selling of property, etc. Councils are bound to ‘consider’ such submissions. Countless other councils ensure that full submissions are published in agendas and minutes – as well as an officer’s summary and response to these submissions. In other words, interested readers can see what residents wrote, as well as how their views are responded to. In Glen Eira the process is far more selective – and, we believe, censored.

Yes, the minimalist legal requirements of Section 223 are fulfilled because they have to be. But in most cases, that is the extent of it. The most important policy decisions and issues, and what residents think about such proposals have not, in recent years, been published. For example, residents have not been provided access to submissions on:

• Community engagement/consultation policy
• Planning Scheme Review
• C87
• C60
• Bike Strategy

All of the above have been major issues for residents. Yet all that has been published are skimpy (and perhaps selectively edited?) officers’ summaries and responses. What has been provided in full is laughable in comparison – ie. submissions to the Toilet Strategy!!!!!!!!

Councillors need to realise that good governance demands full disclosure of submissions on all topics, policies and areas – unless the authors of such submissions request otherwise. Only publishing those that are perceived to be potentially less contentious and ‘sensitive’ is not a substitute for full accountability and transparency.

HYAMS

“I will work for residents and serve the community. I will listen to and do my best to help with your concerns. I will work hard to end excessive rate rises, fight inappropriate development, improve consultation, end council infighting and support local business and community groups and clubs.” (26^th ,February, 2003: Moorabbin Leader)

“Members have paid a two-week deposit. The yearly membership doesn’t start until it opens,” he said. “Overall I don’t see that it’s going to cost them any extra because their memberships will start later and run later.” (16^th January, 2012: Caulfield Leader)

“”I thought, given all the circumstances, it was in the best interests of the community to reappoint the chief executive.” (18^th April, 2005: Caulfield Leader)

LIPSHUTZ

On C60 – “The proposal is an arrogant and greedy attempt at grabbing land for its own use and not utilising it as originally intended under the crown grant,” Cr Lipshutz said. “They basically want to take a section of Caulfield and create a village. It will be an ugly conglomeration of medium-density development with no recreation areas.” (20^th November, 2006: Caulfield Leader)

ESAKOFF

“GLEN Eira’s new mayor, Margaret Esakoff, has pledged to tackle councillor infighting during her 11-month term. …… When she was elected in 2003 she pledged to stop the “infighting” and “divisiveness” at city hall. She told the Leader she would try to be “fair and reasonable to all” and bring the councillors together more often to foster a better working relationship within the chamber”. (3^rd January, 2005: Caulfield Leader)

20th September 2011

Crs Lipshutz/Hyams

In accordance with the O’Neill Recommendation (a) to further protect the Health and Safety of staff in City Management, Cr. Penhalluriack’s access to this work area be suspended and the Director of Community Services be authorised to send the attachment letter to Cr. Penhalluriack (Attachment B).

DIVISION

Cr Esakoff called for a Division on the voting of the Motion

FOR                                       AGAINST

Cr Esakoff                            Cr Penhalluriack

Cr Hyams                             Cr Forge

Cr Lipshutz                          Cr Magee

Cr Tang                                  Cr Pilling

                                                   Cr Lobo

On the basis of the Division the Chairperson declared the Motion LOST.

Full and honest responses to public questions are difficult to find in Glen Eira. Spin, dissembling, and verbal gymnastics are the hallmark of what repeatedly occurs. Our comments in this post relate to one specific question:

“At the Council meeting of February 28th, both Crs Esakoff and Lipshutz moved motions asking for ‘Requests for Reports’ on the Lord Reserve/E.E. Gunn Pavilions and removal of the Caulfield Park depot respectively. Did both of these councillors provide written notice to other councillors prior to calling for these reports as mandated by the ‘no surprises’ clause within the code of conduct and the council resolution passed on the 22nd November 2011?” 

The Mayor read Council’s response. He said: “You have misrepresented both the Code of Conduct and the resolution of 22nd ovember 2011. While Clause 2.4.3 of the Code of Conduct requires Councillors to demonstrate ‘commitment to consult with other Councillors, within the decision making framework and with no surprises’, there is no requirement for prior written notice. As both Councillors, prior to making their requests for reports, verbally foreshadowed their intention to do so if another motion was successful, there was no breach of the Code of Conduct.

The resolution of 22nd November “strongly encourages all councillors to submit all motions to the Mayor and councillors in writing prior to a Council meeting, except where the motion arises during the course of the meeting or in extraordinary circumstances.” The motions were not submitted in writing, but clearly arose during the course of the meeting, as they were requested in response to the resolution passed at item 9.7, which introduced a matter to Council’s budgetary discussions.

Therefore, Councillors Esakoff and Lipshutz did not act in contravention of the resolution of November 22nd in making their requests for reports, as your question implies, and nor did the remainder of the Councillors in unanimously supporting those requests.”

We do not accept this response as an accurate reflection of what occurred on the 28^th February. The requests for reports by both Lipshutz and Esakoff were NOT a ‘natural’ outcome of the discussion on the Victory Park pavilion and nor was there any mention of other motions. Simply stating that a request for a report is ‘foreshadowed’ does not adhere to sufficient notice. Here is what happened –

LIPSHUTZ: spoke about priorities and how this would mean ‘dropping things off the budget and putting other things on the budget. Called the motion ‘aspirational’ and that there were plenty of other ‘aspirational’ projects he’d like to see done such as the removal of the depot from Caulfield Park. Said that he would foreshadow seeking a report on this later. ’If I was cynical and I’m not, I would say that this is an election year ….councillors coming along with their own pet projects.….we need to look at this overall’ Echoed Tang and Esakoff about the necessity for ‘consultation’ with the clubs. Ended up by arguing that ‘what this motion does is places the issue of Victory Park on the table’ but he also stated ‘I don’t think it binds us….it is aspirational’. Ended up by again referring to an election year and that councillors will have to work out their priorities.

ESAKOFF:  Stated that this solved some things but she still had ‘concerns’. Worried that it was being ‘rushed through’ (She’d) ‘like something to come back to us in writing not necessarily to a council meeting’ about the E.E Gunn and Hex Pavilion. She said that ‘I would like something by way of a report’ on female facilities at these ovals. Worried that this motions would cause ‘a great deal of angst’ (from clubs)’ because they are waiting, not lobbying, because they ’know there’s a strategy in place’. Couldn’t therefore vote for the motion because it wasn’t ‘right’.

Please note that in neither of these statements is there any indication that ‘prior notice’ was given to other councillors which is in accord with the ‘no surprises’ policy. Secondly there is nothing in these statements which logically tie in with the eventually passed resolution on the Victory Park pavilion.

Perhaps the most damning indictment of this council’s attempt to fudge the facts and to excuse the clear breach of their own rules is this email written by Cr Neil Pilling to other councillors following the meeting of 28^th February. We cite this in its entirety –

From: neil pilling
Sent: Wednesday, 29 February 2012 12:14:41 AM (UTC+10:00) Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney
To: Cr. Jamie Hyams; Cr. Jim Magee; Cr. Oscar Lobo; Cr. Margaret Esakoff; Cr. Steven Tang; Cr. Cheryl Forge; Cr. Frank Penhalluriack; Cr. Michael Lipshutz; Cr. Neil Pilling
Subject: reports requested tonite and the ‘no surprises’ agreed CR guidelines

Hi All,

Looking back on tonights proceedings and the reports requested in hindsight both the Depot and Lords/Ee gunn reports should have been at least discouraged and not sought.

They both controvene our agreed policy of giving due notice in writing as articulated in a motion passed late last year- This was voted for unanimously from memory so as to prevent ‘reports on the run’ and also i feel to  prevent ‘tactical manouvers’ in a council meeting to undermine motions put.

Whilst the subject matters of both reports is reasonable , this lack of notice is something feel we should guard against in future,

regards Neil”

We leave readers to draw their own conclusions as to the honesty and governance that occurs in Glen Eira, and in particular the role of the Mayor in permitting such tactics to go unchallenged.

At the Special Council Meeting of 3^rd April, Lipshutz moved a motion which stated in part that officers provide:

‘all necessary and all relevant documents related to the mulch facility including, but not limited to, the report conducted by Noel Arnold and Associates’.  

Of course this represents an entire watering down of the original Forge motion which asked for ‘all test results’ and lapsed for want of a seconder. Lipshutz’s motion also included the wonderful weasel words ‘necessary’ and ‘relevant’. Who is to decide what is ‘necessary’ and/or ‘relevant’ remains a moot point. However, the word ALL would imply that at least ostensibly, Lipshutz is asking for documents that either (1) have not previously been made public, and (2) will clear up the question of the mulch facility and its ‘safety’. That should include ‘test results’.

If we are correct in our interpretation, then this same councillor’s statements at the last Council Meeting – only a week following the Special Council Meeting – are quite extraordinary. Lipshutz claimed that Penhalluriacks’ questions were ‘improper’, that he was seeking the same information that his FOI application was geared towards, and that the questions were critical of officers. Hyams joined in later by applying the word ‘bullying’.

Thus we have a council that has double standards and what’s good for the goose is obviously not that good for the gander. When Lipshutz can move a motion requesting ALL documents that are ‘necessary’ to clear up the mulch farce and then turn around and accuse Penhalluriack for basically asking the very same questions, then we’re in major trouble over governance.

It’s also interesting that Lipshutz makes the claim that Penhalluriack is after identical information to his FOI request. Given that the content of these documents were never made public, then how does Lipshutz know that what Penhalluriack was asking for is contained within those documents? Or could it possibly be that being one of the ‘chosen’, he has access to ‘confidential’ information that is not distributed equally to all councillors and thus represents another breach of the Local Law?

The continual abuse of meeting procedures, Local Laws and councillor conduct is mounting up. It is also time that councillors with a shred of decency put a stop to this continual abuse by speaking up in public. Silence is consent and when, as the saying goes, good men do nothing then this allows tyranny to flourish.