Glen Eira Debates

Media release from council, Wednesday 1/9/2010 

Investigation makes recommendations 

 Glen Eira City Council has now officially received the findings of a Local Government Investigations and Compliance Inspectorate (Inspectorate) investigation into the Council.  

The Inspectorate investigated complaints about the Council and individual Councillors. The Inspectorate also investigated complaints about the performance of Council officers. The investigation found no prosecutable breaches, but made a number of recommendations to improve business practice and the community’s perception of Council. In relation to Council officers, the investigation made no adverse findings and no recommendations. The first complaint was received in November 2009. Of 43 complaints received, both prior to and subsequent to the investigation being made public, 27 were investigated. 

The recommendations include comprehensive Councillor training, ensuring consistency in the accuracy of minutes of all meetings, electronic mail procedures, ensuring committees are properly constituted and the need to avoid unauthorised opinion on behalf of Council. 

Other than the recommendations made, the Inspectorate has determined that no further action is warranted in relation to the complaints. It is apparent that a number of complaints were dismissed as there was no evidence to support a breach of the act. 

To the extent that the Inspector had concerns with councillors’ accountability and transparency, they related to conduct concerning the CEO reappointment process and contract that properly took place confidentially. There was no suggestion that the Council or councillors were improperly concealing any activities or deliberations from the public, rather that proper records had not been kept. 

The functions of the Inspectorate include:  

• breaches of the Local Government Act 1989  
• Investigating allegations against councillors and senior council officers concerning Local Government Act 1989
• Conducting compliance audits with all Victorian local councils for requirements under the Local Government Act, 1989
• Monitoring the corporate governance of councils
• Monitoring electoral provisions
• Undertaking prosecutions for breaches of the Local Government Act;
• Recommendations for matters to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT)
• Provide recommendations to councils for continuous improvement
• Providing advice through the Secretary of the Department of Planning and Community Development to the Minister for Local Government where there is serious failure of corporate governance.

The following article appeared in yesterday’s Caulfield Leader –

Letter uproar: Councillors slam former deputy over CEO allegations

“GLEN Eira councillors have strongly denied former deputy mayor Helen Whiteside’s claims of ‘‘bad governance’’ and ‘‘unacceptable behaviour’’ while continuing to suppress her threepage letter of resignation.  

Councillors were to vote on whether to release the letter at last week’s council meeting, but Cr Michael Lipshutz moved a motion to just ‘‘note’’ her resignation instead. Though Cr Jim Magee pushed for it to be made public, his requests were largely ignored.

Mrs Whiteside has provided more detail about her decision to quit on July 30. She said she wanted to know why the cost of reappointing chief executive Andrew Newton – who has held the role for 10 years – soared from $6500 to $44,000. Mr Newton was reappointed for two years in April. ‘‘I was aware of the cost and how it was escalating,’’ Mrs Whiteside said. ‘‘I was on the committee and I was not kept in the loop. I was appalled the cost of reappointing him was over $44,000 when I left office.’’

Mayor Steven Tang refuted suggestions of bad behaviour. ‘‘To the extent former councillor Whiteside’s comments are based on attributing ulterior motives to opposing views, I reject this inference wholeheartedly,’’ he said.

Cr Michael Lipshutz said he was saddened and disappointed ‘‘that Helen has not only resigned but has done so with spite and malice denigrating in such an untruthful way the council and her colleagues’’. Cr Margaret Esakoff is the new deputy mayor.” (end of article)

It is with sheer amazement that we read Whiteside’s ‘explanation’ for her departure. If this is not disingenuous then we don’t know what is! Professed concern for ratepayers $44,000 is ‘noble’ – but hey! This information was made public months and months ago via a public question. So it’s only now that Whiteside quits? Why the silence for months and months? Perhaps the real reason is not our hard earned cash being spent, but the simple fact that her preference was a five year term for Newton. Seems that her admitted ‘disappointment’ at the two year contract is a more plausible reason. Further, given Magee’s support of this position, then of course he would also push for the release of her letter.

Then we have the ‘other side’ – Lipshutz and co. Seems that their tirade against Whiteside and the resultant bad publicity, has cautioned them to write the following epistle which appeared in today’s Moorabbin Leader under the tag line We’re Here to Help –

“We write in response to an article ‘Glen Eira councillor walks out’ (Leader August 11^th).  As Glen Eira councillors we have sworn an oath to undertake the duties of the office of councillor in the best interests of the people of the municipal district of Glen Eira.

We understand that in representing the people of Glen Eira we will disagree from time to time.

We respect each other’s right to hold informed but different views and have always understood that disagreement does not mean disharmony.

We encourage a spirit of debate at council where councillors may respectfully take diametrically opposed positions on one issue and then strongly agree on the next. These differences do not affect our ability to maintain professional and cordial relationships.

We look forward to welcoming our new councillor colleague and offer him or her all the assistance required  to fully and effectively represent the Glen Eira community.”

City of Glen Eira councillors.

We can now really rest assured that the ‘spirit of debate’ is alive and well and that there is no ‘disharmony’ within the wonderful ‘club’ that is Glen Eira!

Lipshutz in his tirade again Whiteside claimed:

“all Councillors without exception and whether or not agreeing with each other have concentrated on the issues and have not allowed any personal differences to impinge upon their work as Councillors. This is clearly reflected in the voting pattern inasmuch as there is no voting pattern.”

‘No voting pattern’ – you’ve got to be kidding. Residents have been repeatedly told that councillors engage in ‘robust’ and ‘vigorous’ debate. Pity is, that this does not occur in the Council chambers – only behind the veil of secrecy of councillor briefings. Councillor briefing meetings are meant to ‘inform’, not to orchestrate voting patterns that will later be performed for the gallery in the council chambers.

As evidence of the above, we ask readers to consider the following table. We have gone through the minutes of every council meeting since the election of the current crop of councillors and added up the number of resolutions put to the vote, and the actual number that were passed unanimously. The results are staggering – just on 90% of resolutions/recommendations have been passed unanimously. The vast majority that were merely ‘carried’, involved planning applications. Even here, the ‘carried’ vote overwhelmingly supported the officer recommendations. Paltry amendments came into play only when there were plenty of objectors!

The stuff that really mattered, such as major policies, and shoddy/misleading reports by council officers, were to an incredible degree accepted fully and generally without amendment. The last council meeting which was jam packed with important strategies that will determine future directions were all passed unanimously with some innocuous amendments such as ‘advocating’ to state and federal governments.

Please note that in the numbers provided we did not count such votes as leave of absence, confirmation of previous minutes, etc. 

The table is a sad indictment on the gross failure of Glen Eira Council to conduct itself with integrity. Add to the table the even more startling fact that most votes are taken with little or no debate, then the whole governance process reeks with repetitive breaches, over an extended period of time, of the provisions of the Local Government Act for open, transparent, and honest conduct of Council meetings. Clearly the whole council should be sacked.

From the minutes of August 8th 2010 Council Meeting –

Right of reply

(a) Cr Lipshutz – “I wish to make a personal statement and it arises from an article in The Leader that was published today.

Helen Whiteside was first elected in 2005 with me. Indeed we campaigned together and worked closely together since that time. We are not only colleagues but friends, showing very similar views as to what sort of city we wanted Glen Eira to be. Accordingly while I wish to pay tribute to the significant work Helen performed as a Councillor, I have to say I am saddened and disappointed that Helen has not only resigned but has done so with spite and malice in denigrating in such an untruthful way the Council and her colleagues. Colleagues who honoured her by electing her as a Mayor and a Council which she once lead.

I firmly believe that we were elected to make decisions on behalf of residents but equally as a functioning democracy we don’t always win every battle. You win some. You lose some. But essentially the Council or indeed any level of government to function properly there must be respect that the majority decision prevails. One does not take one’s bat and ball home merely because you lost a vote. You didn’t agree with the umpire’s decision. Regrettably, Helen has been unable to accept the majority decision. I recall that when she was first elected, she was faced by attack by certain members of the public about her role as a nurse. She wanted to resign. When she was elected I said only the preferences from Cr Penhalluriack and me she was miffed and wanted to resign. In each case, she was successfully prevailed upon to remain. In this case she could not accept the decision with respect to the re-appointment of the CEO and removed herself from her colleagues. She fomented dissent and division and ceased to be a team player.

 In a leading article in The Leader she cites her reason for resigning as the continued investigation by the Local Government Investigation and Compliance Inspectorate, the re-appointment of the CEO and some Councillors’ unacceptable behaviour.

It is my considered view that Council has worked well, co-operatively and respectfully to each other and Officers. I am unaware as to any matter of such magnitude as would warrant a resignation and indeed all Councillors without exception and whether or not agreeing with each other have concentrated on the issues and have not allowed any personal differences to impinge upon their work as Councillors. This is clearly reflected in the voting pattern inasmuch as there is no voting pattern. Councillors look at issues and decide on issues and not on personalities. It is decidedly healthy that there are differences of opinion and that those opinions whether expressed here in the chamber or elsewhere are stated without fear. On occasions debate and discussions have been robust but in all the time that I have been a Councillor we have always been able to agree to disagree. There’s only one Councillor in all the time that I have been on Council has been unable to do so – it has been Helen who removed herself in recent times from the Councillor Group. Clearly she does not wish to be associated with the other 8 Councillors. Who was guilty of bad behaviour? 

Helen has also raised the ongoing investigation. Let it be clear that the Inspectors have told me that the Inspectorate will investigate any matter brought before them no matter how spurious. This Council and every Councillor has not only fully cooperated with the Inspectorate but has afforded the Inspectorate access to every document for which a request has been made. I totally and categorically reject any suggestion that Councillors have not complied with the Municipal Inspector’s requests. 

Any suggestion or any or innuendo to the contrary is absolutely false. Helen has also asserted that there has been no that there have been decisions made leading to bad governance. Regrettably again she forms that view because she was a minority position. While we can always do things better I am confident that Councillors are well aware of the need for good governance and we have complied with all requirements. 

I can respect that Helen in keeping with her record of threatening to resign when the going gets tough has now resigned but I find it unacceptable and inappropriate that in doing so she has demeaned and denigrated the organisation that she has led as a Mayor.

It is sad that Helen has sour grapes towards her colleagues but to suggest that Council is not united, to suggest that Councillors are or have been engaged in bad behaviour or that there are significant governance issues is not just incorrect but is plainly wrong. 

I, for one, have never considered resigning, nor will I. Barring any unforeseen circumstances, I will be serving my full term and I am committed to ensuring this Council continues to work as it has to date: co-operatively, respectfully and diligently. When I lose a vote, I will not pack up and leave.”

From council’s website:

“Cr Helen Whiteside submitted her resignation from the Glen Eira Council on Friday 30 July.

Helen served as a Councillor 2005 – 2010 (re-elected 2008), as Mayor in 2009 and Deputy Mayor in 2010. She served on the following Committees: Audit; Animal Management; Arts & Culture; Community Grants; Roads and was a Trustee of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trust.

The Victorian Electoral Commission is responsible for the filling of the vacancy.

In the meantime, residents should deal with other Camden Ward or Glen Eira Councillors”.