On 28^th November 2011 a public question at Bayside City Council asked for information on each councillor’s academic qualifications and the courses each had undertaken since becoming a councillor. Information was also requested on the cost of these courses to Council. We’ve copied the responses and provide them in the public interest. We note specifically the number of councillors who have undertaken Director courses and wonder how many, if any, of our councillors have completed similar courses.

Academic Qualifications

Del Porto – B.A. (Hons) M.A Melb; Post Grad Sec. ACU

Hayes – Adv. Dip App. Sci. (Farm Management)

Long – B.A. (Multidiscipline)

Norris – M.A, M. Sc (Econ)

Frederico – B. Bus. (Mktg) Certificate of Business (Tourism)

Cooper-Shaw – B. Comm, B-Ed. Grad Dip Criminology; M.A. (applied Psych) M. Ed.

Russell – Nil

Things are hotting up and becoming really interesting. With the mayoral election just around the corner we can lay bets that the phones have been running hot and little clandestine meetings going on all over the place, with lobbying at its most intensive. Promises are being made left right and centre; favours called in, and all kinds of pressures brought to bear. The way we read the situation, is that the race is well and truly on between Hyams and Magee. Speculating a little further, we believe that the gang will of course vote for Hyams (ie. Lipshutz, Tang, Esakoff and Hyams himself) whilst Magee will possibly have the votes of Forge, Pilling, Penhalluriack and himself. That leaves dear Oscar – the new ‘king maker’.

What a turn around from last year when Lobo nominated himself and got no support. His continual cry of ‘4 plus 1’ fell on deaf ears. Well, this year things are vastly different. Lobo is that pivotal ‘1’! The question of course is: will he succumb to the wiles of Hyams et al or the wiles of Magee et al? How will he vote? Will past animosity against ‘the gang’ suddenly be fresh in his memory, or will his current (inexplicable) embrace of the group remain firm? From last year’s ‘nowhere man’, Lobo is suddenly thrust into the limelight – the real ‘kingmaker’.

Candidates are lining up for the annual Mayoral Stoush. In the blue corner we have Hyams, whilst in the red corner there are two likely candidates – Pilling and Magee. It’s the traditional end of year derby that takes place behind the closed doors of assembly meetings and, you can bet your bottom dollar, countless private phone calls, secret meetings and emails, away from the prying eyes of the public and Newton. Favours are called in, promises made, hand on heart commitments to the ‘public good’, favourable time off from work, agreeable wives and husbands. The prize isn’t half bad either – just under $90,000 per annum; fame and glory; your mug shot on the hallowed walls and of course the opportunity to ram your (and Newton’s) agenda through with support from your allies. Sitting up on high you can squash debate so easily; you can rule anybody at any time out of order; you can prevent residents from addressing council; you can dismiss public questions as harassment; you can speak to the press and promulgate more spin; you can have your picture in the Glen Eira news innumerable times; you can, in short, rule the roost.

Or you have the real opportunity to return Glen Eira to what it should be – a place of respect for individuals, especially the public, and to oversee the change in corporate culture. We do not hold out much hope for this option if the blue corner maintains its current position.

Gazing into our crystal ball, the numbers are probably evenly split. We doubt that Pilling will stand if Magee does, and vice versa – this would only dilute their already limited power base. Lobo is the lynch pin. His vote is vital in breaking the Mexican stand off. Will he again stand with the gang and vote for Hyams? Will he resort to his former self and break with his new found friends? We do feel sincere sympathy for him – the pressure must be enormous. In a very real sense the future of good governance rests with him.

From the minutes of 22^nd November under ‘Urgent Business’

STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF COUNCIL BY THE MAYOR 

Cr Esakoff: “On behalf of Council I wish to correct the record in relation to assertions made by Cr Frank Penhalluriack at the Ordinary Council Meeting on 2 November 2011 in his request for a report.  

It was stated by Cr Penhalluriack that Officers had failed to table reports at Council Meetings.  

This statement is not true and on behalf of Council I apologies (sic) to the CEO and Officers for these assertions being made without any supporting evidence.  

It is noted that reports listed were either tabled at Council Meetings or provided to Councillors. It is further noted that there is no requirement unless specified that a report once prepared must go to a Council Meeting as opposed to Councillors or an Assembly of Councillors.” 

We have previously commented that Andrew Newton’s statement  that reports are “submitted promptly – usually to the immediately following Council Meeting” implies that ALL requests for reports are tabled at ordinary COUNCIL MEETINGS – as signified by the use of Upper Case. The Esakoff statement is thus not only incorrect but again totally illogical. She in fact admits that Penhalluriack had made ‘assertions’ that Officers ‘failed to table reports at Council Meetings’ – yet in the final paragraph there is the admission that the reports Penhalluriack referred to were “EITHER TABLED AT COUNCIL MEETINGS OR PROVIDED TO COUNCILLORS”. This in fact CONFIRMS everything that Penhalluriack said.

There are many other points we could quibble with – such as; what does ‘provided’ mean? What ‘evidence’ is required when Penhalluriack is talking about the ABSENCE of tabled reports in full Council Meetings. The ‘evidence’ is to be found in the minutes of all these meetings and the fact that NONE of the reports he read out appear in them.  And surely the onus to provide proof to the contrary rests with Esakoff here and not Penhalluriack?

We can only ask why, with supposedly 8 intelligent people sitting as councillors, and 3 lawyers to boot, how no-one could see the inherent contradictions throughout this statement. It in fact makes a laughing stock of Esakoff and the rest. In their haste to do Newton’s bidding, logic, clear thinking, and respect for governance has been well and truly scuttled. This statement only cements the growing perception among residents of the incompetence of these councillors, the manipulation by officers for their own ends, and the abandonment of all principles of what constitutes good governance. It is utterly shameful and should be condemned by all residents concerned with what is happening to this Council.

The minutes for the November 22^nd Council Meeting have made a very, very speedy appearance on Council’s website. We are however, continually amazed at the lack of logic that is contained in council’s reports and in the motions that are tabled. These minutes exemplify in spades the division and blatant ‘control mechanisms’ that we believe are being instigated by ‘the gang’ and Newton.

The in camera agenda items listed the following: “12.5 under s89(2)(f)” legal advice” which relates to right of reply”. More ratepayers funds are thus being wasted on ‘legal advice’ . Next, the minutes feature the outcome of this discussion item –

“Crs Lipshutz/Tang

In relation to Cr Penhalluriack’s 9 August Right of Reply, Council:

1. Notes that on 9 August 2011 Cr Frank Penhalluriack made a Right of Reply in which he stated in part:

“The article refers to a legal stoush, and claims that residents are saying that Council has sought legal advice concerning allegations that I have bullied our Chief Executive Officer, Mr Andrew Newton. I am embarrassed and demeaned by such an unfounded allegation reaching publication in such a widely circulated newspaper. And I can safely presume that our Chief Executive Officer will also suffer this embarrassment.”

2. Resolves to disassociate itself from the comments made by Cr Penhalluriack referred to in paragraph 1 above.

3. That this resolution be incorporated in to the public record of this meeting.

The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously.

 COMMENTS:

• Penhalluriack is expressing a personal reaction to what has been in the public domain. He is entitled to respond to such items. Furthermore, he is stating that he is embarrassed. Since when is it a ‘crime’ and the cause for ‘legal advice’ when someone admits their embarrassment?
• He ‘presumes’ that the CEO is equally embarrassed by such media reports. Again, a logical assumption and not a hanging offence.
• Nowhere in this motion DOES COUNCIL DENY THE TRUTH OF PENHALLURIACK’S STATEMENT.
• Nowhere in this motion does Penhalluriack BULLY, HARRASS, OR VILIFY THE CEO, so what on earth is there for Council to disassociate itself from?
• Why after three months does this only now appear in the public domain?
• What is the motivation behind such an ill thought out resolution except to tarnish and attempt to discredit one councillor?

But it gets even better. The minutes then record the following: Item 12.6(b). We note the following and again question the transparency of what goes on behind the closed doors of in camera meetings and assembly meetings. THERE IS NO ITEM 12.6 (b) LISTED IN THE AGENDA OR IN THE MINUTES – only Item 12.6(a). In other words, the Agenda & Minutes do not reflect in any shape or form what is discussed in secret. If this was a late item – then it should have been included as 12.6(b) in the minutes. Thus discussions go on without the necessary disclosure as required by the Local Government Act. However, we have full confidence that at the next Council Meeting Hyams will leap up with another ‘correction’ to the minutes which will annul this ‘clerical error’ or oversight!

The minutes then go on to report –  

Item 12.6 (b)

2. In the interest of considered decision-making, Council 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.

3. That Council strongly encourages all councillors not to support any motion initiated by any councillor unless the motion has been submitted in writing to councillors prior to the Council meeting except where the motion arises during the course of the meeting or in extraordinary circumstances. 

COMMENTS

• ‘strongly encourages’ is meaningless – legally, morally, ethically. It is nothing but an attempt to gag councillors and circumvent open, spontaneous, and genuine debate within the council chamber. It has no authority of law backing it – that’s why the phrase ‘strongly encourages’ is used. It is not worth the paper it is written on we suggest!
• We also find it obscene in its attempt to direct how councillors should or shouldn’t vote on any matter raised by another councillor.

The extraordinary thing about all this, is that councillors continue to bow their heads, and abdicate their responsibilities to their constituents. When we thought that the low point has been reached in the governance practices of this council, we always seem to find another benchmark which is even lower!