Glen Eira Debates

At Tuesday night’s council meeting Penhalluriack asked officers the following in relation to petitions and the guidelines which they are meant to follow. This is what happened:

PENHALLURIACK: stated that Council website said that petitions must be handed in 2 working days prior to Council Meetings. ‘why this lead time is required’ and ‘what is the legal grounds for this requirement…..(On Nov. 22^nd a petition of 523 signatures was tabled. Penhalluriack read out the petition.)….’submitted 2 days (before council meeting and) signatures checked by organisers.) ‘Has this number and what number been confirmed’ (since the minutes of 22^nd November stated ‘unverified number’)….’will the correct number be incorporated into the minutes of this Council Meeting under Item 5…..?’

BURKE: ‘Petitions (are submitted) in the manner which Council has determined….council accepted the minutes that you’re referring to at Agenda Item 4 of tonight’s meeting’.

PENHALLURIACK: Stated that his question wasn’t answered. Repeated the question and asked for response in writing.

BURKE: Taken on notice and repeated that ‘…petitions are treated the way council wants them treated….reading over my notes (minutes of 22^nd November) …were adopted unanimously’

PENHALLURIACK: ‘I ask when did council determine this’ (and asked again that his questions be answered).

BURKE: Claimed that he had seen ‘so many names crossed out…in a way…(people)realise what they’ve signed’ (and changed their minds).

INTERJECTION FROM GALLERY: ‘I crossed out those names…..I’m challenging what Mr. Burke said’

PENHALLURIACK: Stated that he believed all the signatures had been checked by organisers and assumes as a result of the comment from gallery that the names were crossed out to ensure only those residents from Glen Eira were listed as final signatories.

ESAKOFF: ‘Mr Burke will get back to you on the detail…..’

COMMENTS:

Councillors were sent the following email upon receipt of the petition at the council service desk – “a petition for tomorrow night’s Council Meeting was delivered at council reception this morning at 8.30am, thereby meeting the requirements of 2 working days. Receipt of the petition was signed off by Callum McPherson at the front desk.

The 523 valid signatures thus far were collected within the space of only two weeks and we anticipate the arrival of many more completed forms in the coming days. These will be presented to council in due course. Residents are solidly behind the need to advertise the CEO petition”.

We’ve highlighted the phrase ‘valid signatures’ because organisers did check all names and found that some people who did not reside in Glen Eira had signed. They obviously agreed with the statement and their place of abode was only discovered AFTER they had signed. These names were later removed via the use of a 12 inch ruler and pen, marking a very straight line through these names. CLEARLY THESE CROSSOUTS COULD NOT HAVE BEEN MADE BY INDIVIDUALS FREEHAND. The copies clearly substantiate this.

Paul Burke’s ‘surmising’ of motives, as an excuse for not publishing the number of signatories in the last set of minutes, is thus not only scurrilous, but devious, deliberate and extends far beyond his official capacity. He is not there to editorialise and attempt to denigrate the authenticity of the petitioners and organisers. As come commentators have already written – did Mr Burke also check every single signature on the 6000 plus that was submitted by the Northern Memorial Pool, or the 700 plus signatures from the McKinnon Basketball Association? Again, we note, that Esakoff, Hyams and Lipshutz must go down in history as the only councillors who refused to accept a legitimate petition from constituents.

More importantly, Burke’s failure to answer Penhalluriack’s questions should be censured in the strongest terms. Councillors have every right to ask whatever they deem part of their duty and responsibility. Burke’s failure to answer such questions again reveals exactly what is wrong with the governance of Glen Eira and why the silence of all councillors on such issues is to be denounced.

Item: Right of Reply

Penhalluriack read his ‘right of reply’ (published in the agenda) concerning an earlier request (November 2^nd) as to why numerous Officer reports had not been tabled at ordinary council meetings and why Esakoff’s statement had subsequently ‘disassociated’ Council from his statement.

TANG: raised a ‘point of order’. Stated that what Penhalluriack said contains ‘a reference to council’s actions’ and ‘as a member of council’ he wants to ‘correct’ this and also Penhalluriack’s correction of the Mayor, although ‘I do not feel it is my place to do that’. So raised a ‘point of order’ requesting ‘Right of Reply’ on Penhalluriack’s commentary where he would address issues concerning council ‘generally’.

ESAKOFF: ‘Yes you can Cr Tang. Go right ahead’

TANG:  Repeated Penhalluriack’s statement that council has no reason to disassociate itself from anything he had said and quoted the last section. ‘I think that’s a reference to what council’s done…I don’t accept that entirely…..(long servicing councillors) have received a number of the reports that Cr Penhalluriack was referring to…..there is an argument that council (should have them tabled at ordinary meetings) but that argument weighs against every one of us as councillors I don’t think it’s in Cr Penhalluriack’s ability to disassociate himself from that (since as a member of council he’d have to include himself as having breached the local government act)….’if we want a report at an ordinary council meeting we will specify that’…..I am of the belief that there is no requirement….in the Local Government Act…(also went on to say that Penhalluriack’s claim that he hasn’t received any advice from councillors is) ‘clearly a false statement….because I believe….I received a circular….which identified….where these reports went….I thought I received the same circular as every other councillor received.’

COMMENT

There is clearly a double set of standards operating at this council, especially when it comes to Cr Penhalluriack. Cr. Penhalluriack’s Right of Reply was available (for the first time ever) in the agenda papers. This means that every councillor would have had prior notice of what he was about to say. Under the ‘no surprises policy’ the Local Law also states :

“The statement must be made in writing and included in the notice paper for the next ordinary meeting of Council except where the comments referred to in subclause 238(1) have arisen since the printing of the agenda”.

Tang’s response, and Esakoff’s complicity in allowing him to raise both a point of order and a Right of Reply are unconscionable and contravene Council’s own set of laws. It is absolutely clear that there are one set of rules for Penhalluriack and another for the gang. We will expand-

1. Esakoff is mandated to provide reasons for allowing Tang to raise a point of order and agreeing to it. She did not.
2. If Tang has a legitimate point of order, then this should have been raised BEFORE Penhalluriack spoke and NOT AFTER – especially since he knew exactly what Penhalluriack was going to say.
3. The point of order morphed into a ‘Right of Reply’. Why wasn’t Tang’s ‘Right of Reply’ published in the agenda together with Penhalluriack’s? Did Tang, in effect give prior notice as required by the Local Law? If not, then why was he allowed to get away with this tactic? Why did no other councillor and especially the Mayor rule him out of order?
4. Tang’s statement is an absolute nonsense and designed to not only cloud the issue that Penhalluriack raised but to protect Newton. The facts are clear: Not all requests for reports are tabled in ordinary council meetings – that is what Penhalluriack said. Esakoff confirmed this in her statement when she admitted that reports are often presented in assembly meetings. Tang also confirmed this. Hence Penhalluriack’s statements are not ‘false’, nor ‘incorrect’, but truthful and accurate. Hence his statement that council has no reason to disassociate itself from his statement is also correct and legitimate. What is far from legitimate according to Council’s own idiosyncratic ‘no suprises’ rules, is Tang’s ‘point of order’ and then ‘Right of Reply’. We believe there was absolutely no need for it and surmise that the only motive could have been to defuse (and smear?) Penhalluriack. We also believe that this was an orchestrated tactic given Esakoff’s ruling in allowing such a statement. This entire episode again speaks volumes as to the hypocrisy and double standards operating at Glen Eira.

The gallery included many men, women and children from the McKinnon Basketball Association. The following report on the discussion focuses on the decision whether or not to hold the discussion on court allocation in public, or restrict to in camera. It was part of the response to Committee Meeting Minutes on GESAC.

LIPSHUTZ: Gesac is ‘unfortunately behind schedule….(due to) builder’s delay….probably be able to make an opening in February…..basketball courts are pretty much completed….(pool area) will still take some time….(paying) liquidated damages in a large amount…our project managers are on top of every aspect….number of issues where (builders have had to redo work) because we are insisting….that GESAC will be of the highest standard….”

MAGEE: “there’s nobody more disappointed….than myself ….GESAC behind schedule….we were all hoping that GESAC would be open on the 1st December….I’m actually quite comfortable that it’s late….Council has a number of senior engineers working for us on site…..(sometimes they decide that ) what is happening is not good enough…..stop, redesign, pull out….it’s crucially important that we don’t rush GESAC….just quickly patch it up and get it finished….(handed over and then) for the next umpteem years we’re continually trying to patch it….GESAC….in my opinion is the state of the art…..(many basketballers in the gallery) and I can whet your appetite by telling you that the courts are the best that I have ever seen….it is a world class centre, it is made of world class materials…we have to be patient because we have to do it properly….there’s an item of business to be considered later on in camera (12.8) and that’s to do with basketball …..Council is not able to deal with that item in the ordinary council meeting…..that item must be considered….dealt with in camera….I thank you all very much for coming….but unfortunately we can’t talk about the allocation of basketball in the open part of the council meeting….but I can assure you there will be a report…..and a report on the voting…..I would have loved to have been able to do more tonight, but it’s an item for camera and it will stay an item to be considered in camera….

PILLING: ” I thank everyone for coming here tonight….because of confidential nature we have to do this privately….the results of our decisions tonight will be available in council minutes when published ….It’s a bit disappointing I understand but advice is to do things by the letter and certain councillors are resolved to do that….great to see (people) committed and passionate….I’m hopeful it will be a good outcome for the community.

COMMENT: the really sad aspect of this outcome is not merely the disregard for all those people who crammed into the gallery tonight and then left disappointed. But what these comments reveal is that once again, decisions are made behind closed doors (ie. ‘advice’, ‘certain councillors’, ‘resolved’). After all the pronouncements on Cr. Pilling’s blog site, it would have been uplifting to actually have a motion put to the floor that the item be discussed in chamber. By failing to move any motion, and meekly accepting what was obviously decided previously, residents are again left to ponder what has happened to transparency and accountability – although it would not be too hard to guess which councillors might have opposed the removal of ‘confidential status’. Please note, Cr. Lobo was absent. It would therefore have been a very interesting vote – probably 4/4 and Esakoff forced to use her casting vote – again embarrassing to a council that prides itself on being a cosy ‘club’ with no division!

We will report on the other items in the next few days.