GE Council Meeting(s)

Archived Posts from this Category

April 22, 2016

Bye Bye To Your Democratic Rights!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Service Performance
[8] Comments

PS: Not for the first time has Lipshutz and his cronies attempted to thwart what most reasonable people would consider to be open and transparent government. Below is an image from the 2013 minutes where the groundwork for the current agenda item was laid. Please note:

The mover and seconder of the motion
How the current proposed changes to the Local Law contradicts the council resolution from that time (ie all questions answered shall be minuted. The current version implies that only those ‘read’ out will be minuted!)
Since this September 2013 meeting, the Local Laws Advisory committee has only met on 3 occasions – 9th April 2014; 3rd December 2014; 18th May 2015. The 2015 members of this committee were – Lipshutz, Hyams, Okotel and Lobo! Need we say more? Thus 3 meetings in two and a half years to come up with this nonsense!
We refer readers to our post of the time in order to assess councillors’ comments – see: https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2013/09/06/public-questions-whittling-away/

After years and years of promising to amend the Local Law there is finally an agenda item that proposes to further erode residents’ democratic rights and to make it even harder to get answers out of council. Submissions will be called for so we urge all residents to take particular notice of what is proposed and to think carefully what this will mean for transparency and accountability in Glen Eira.

Most of the changes focus on the right to ask public questions. Here is what the arch conservatives want –

Agenda items are posted online on Friday after 12pm. Public questions can currently be emailed to council by 12pm of the day of the council meeting (ie Tuesday). The proposal is to reduce this deadline by 24 hours (ie Monday 12pm). Even if the argument is that officers require more time to answer questions, surely this impediment can be overcome simply by publishing the agenda well before Friday afternoon so that residents can read the agenda and get their questions in earlier? Plenty of other councils publish their agenda a week prior to the formal council meeting –(Bayside, Stonnington for example).
Any question that is now over 150 words WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED. Previously the wording was ‘should be 150 words’ and to the best of our knowledge, no question was rejected which contained more than 150 words. Whilst some may argue that good questions should be able to be submitted below this number, there surely are occasions when detail is required and questions exceed 150 words? What this also means is that questions over 150 words will NOT BE RECORDED IN THE MINUTES. Another blow to accountability!
No more than 2 questions will be accepted from a single resident and they HAVE TO BE PRESENT IN THE CHAMBER FOR THEIR QUESTIONS TO BE READ OUT! Again, we are not sure whether this means that if the person is not present their questions will be recorded in the minutes. All we’re told is that the question will be answered by ‘mail or email’. We suspect that they won’t become part of the official record since another part of the proposals states that ‘The minutes will record questions read…’
Even the quarterly report will now only record those question read out and not the number asked!

What is extraordinary about this report is that not a single word of justification for any of the recommended changes is provided. Why council (or rather the stacked Local Laws committee) considers any of these changes necessary and beneficial is anyone’s guess. We have no doubt that these changes are to the detriment of open and accountable government – rather ironic we feel when the state government is currently reviewing the Local Government Act with the stated intention of improving governance! We also remind readers that Delahunty is on this advisory committee!

Thus for all the promises of amending the Local Law in terms of the ‘unauthorised sporting groups’ (aka the Frisbee affair) and basic questions of Notice of Motion, that this is all that the Local Laws committee could come up with after years and years of ‘consideration’ is a disgrace. It is even more disgraceful that not a single word of justification is provided in the Corporate Counsel’s report as to why such changes are deemed to be necessary and why the new CEO has permitted such a report to even go out as the official record! All this means is the further erosion of good governance in Glen Eira and the resolve to diminish public participation even further.

April 5, 2016

Item 9.2 – Planning Scheme Review

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[12] Comments

NEWS FLASH: KELVIN HO IS COUNCILLOR ELECT

Motion to accept moved by Hyams and seconded by Lipshutz.

HYAMS: started off by saying that one of the ‘requirements’ for councils is to regularly review their planning schemes and this was last done in 2010/11. People then told council that they ‘wanted mandatory heights’, ‘transition zones’, and ‘better protection of neighbourhood character’. Council therefore ‘implemented neighbourhood character overlays’, plus the new zones ‘had height limits’. In regards to Commercial zones then VCAT ‘disagrees’ with officers who believe that ‘our policies should protect’ against ‘this type of height that VCAT has been allowing’. Said ‘I don’t have a lot of faith in VCAT’ but they make the decisions and this is ‘binding’ so it’s ‘something that we need to look at’ in order to give Commercial zones ‘greater protection’ in regard to heights. The government is now looking at the residential zones, so ‘it is good’ that the discussion paper ‘doesn’t focus directly on those’ because ‘whatever we decide’ can be over-ridden by the government. Stated that the original Plan Melbourne talked about 60% of development going into established suburbs, but with the new Plan Melbourne Refresh the figure is no 70% of development in established suburbs so that means ‘cramming more dwellings into established suburbs’. He hoped therefore that the ‘protections that we do have aren’t diminished by Plan Melbourne Refresh’.

Claimed that ‘community consultation’ is very important and that ‘what the community tells us’ from the review ‘will guide us’. Went through the various scheduled meetings and the themes of the discussion paper. Said that council would collate all the information and then send it off to the Minister in August. Changes ‘will require a formal planning scheme amendment’ so this will ‘need to go through a lengthy process’ of consultation, planning panels and then council’s position sent off to the Minister. So even if ‘we all agree’ about height limits in commercial zones, and other things, it will still depend on the Minister.

LIPSHUTZ: planning schemes are ‘integral’ because it ‘certainly affects everyone’ so it is ‘important that the community be involved’. Agreed with Hyams that it’s important that people are involved and they come to the meetings and ‘present their views’ because they can then ‘go to the government’ and say that ‘we’ve listened to the community; we actually know what the community wants’. Said it’s not 9 councillors saying this is what we like, but the ‘community saying this is what we require’. With the new zones people were saying that there is now development that ‘wasn’t allowed before’ well, ‘no one can build anything now that they could not before’. People can ‘twitter’ as much as they like and use other social media but ‘at the end of the day’ it’s ‘so important’ that people come ‘to these meetings and put your views’. Thought that the ‘zones are working well, but they can be improved’. Problem is VCAT because ‘they allow one thing in’ and the ‘next development comes along’ and they say ‘it is a street that is changing, therefore we will allow a second one’ and this ‘opens the floodgates’. Welcomed the review and wanted community ‘answers’ to take to the government’.

MAGEE: said he welcomed the review and that he wrote to the Planning Minister ‘last year asking for various types of reviews’ especially on the commercial zones and imposing overlays. ‘We had already commenced those discussions with the Minister’. So it is good that the ‘MInister is now formally requesting us to do what we were asking the Minister to let us do’. Said that ‘we can change our planning scheme, we can change our zones’ but this ‘won’t make one iota of difference’ if the Minister doesn’t also review VCAT. VCAT must ‘apply’ the planning scheme and shouldn’t be able ‘just to consider’ it. So council ‘can do all this work’ which they have done in 2002 and in 2010 and the ‘community told us’ what they wanted. ‘We knew street by street’ what people wanted through the minimal change areas. This was then changed into the new zones and ‘there were still problems’ because those problems are due to VCAT. Perfect example is Claire Street, McKinnon where there was a ‘totally inappropriate’ application. The ‘applicant lost at VCAT and came back to us a few months later’ with a new application which is ‘very little difference’. ‘So if there is no clear guidance from the Minister to VCAT’ then this planning scheme review is just ‘window dressing’. ‘It looks good, it sounds good, we’re all happy’ until the first council rejection goes to VCAT and ‘they disregard our planning scheme’. ‘You’re in the hands of an individual at VCAT’. Welcomes community input and ‘that will be what this council puts forward’ but unless the Minister looks at VCAT then ‘I worry that we are doing all this for no reason’.

ESAKOFF: said she was looking forward to community views and that ‘it is hard to imagine that anyone would want more’ development. Thinks that people will say that they want ‘less development’. Said she remembers community forums in 2002 where people were ‘horrified’ at the thought of 3 storey shop-top housing. For Council ‘to put forward what our community says’ is ‘going to be a difficult one’ because for ‘us to go back with a lesser footprint if you like’ that what is there now, ‘we know where that is going to be put’ and ‘it won’t be accepted’. ‘Anything other than more won’t be accepted’. Hoped that she was wrong in this forecast. What the community has got to say is ‘important’ because they might come up with ‘ideas’ that council ‘has yet to hear’ so this is ‘well worth listening to’.

SOUNNESS: said he’s got some experience in planning elsewhere where height and density is combined in other states. Victoria is different and complex and hard for people to understand. Said that the themes are good and people should respond not with planning language but with ‘your vernacular’. Thought that the 3^rd theme on environmental sustainability was ‘vital’. Said he’s got a major concern about climate, and how ‘we adapt and manage’ these changes. Temperature increases mean less water and impacts on farming and food production.

LOBO: said he would try not to be ‘controversial’. Said he forecasts that the zones could ‘remain the same’ but people will have the opportunity to voice ‘their concerns’ and ‘what they have lost and hopefully what they will not lose in the future’. Said that the repeated ‘sentence’ that you can’t do now what you could do before’ is true, but the ‘zones’ have given ‘authority to builders to open up the floodgates’. Council can’t stop this or stop VCAT. So council is insisting on ‘democracy for Skyrail’ and ‘in this case we may have overlooked the democracy of asking the residents to comment’.

PILLING: said that Carnegie and Bentleigh East were ‘the real hotspots’ where residents ‘are concerned’ as well as the activity centres. ‘This is a chance for residents to get involved’. Thought this would be a ‘really valuable exercise’.

HYAMS: commented on the consultation on the zones and the consultation on Skyrail that Lobo referred to. The zones ‘were a direct translation’ from minimal change and housing diversity areas. The difference was that ‘in each of those zones we actually put more restrictions on what could be built’ and put on mandatory heights and increased setbacks. ‘So we actually did provide better protection right throughout Glen Eira’ and that’s why ‘we didn’t feel it was necessary to consult because’ it was basically a ‘transition’ and they were only ‘implementing the findings of the previous consultation’ where people wanted height limits and transition zones which ‘came with the’ new residential zones. But with Skyrail the government is ‘proposing to put in something that completely changes the neighbourhood amenity’. Didn’t think there was ‘any valid comparison’ between the two examples. Urged people to ‘take advantage of the opportunity’ to comment and let council know ‘what they are thinking’. Said there’s a ‘tension’ between the need to ‘preserve neighbourhood character and residential amenity’ and to cater for a ‘substantial population growth’. This is what they tried to achieve with the zones by directing growth to transport corridors, ‘closer to shops so there would be less driving’. Not everyone’s going to ‘get what they want’ but important that people have a say.

MOTION PUT AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY

NOTE: DELAHUNTY WAS ABSENT

April 1, 2016

The ‘Discussion Paper’ – #1

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[13] Comments

We’ve uploaded the Planning Scheme Review Discussion Paper HERE.

Please peruse and we welcome your (initial) views.

March 22, 2016

Lipshutz: Conflict Of Interest?

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

At the first council meeting of the year, Lipshutz and Delahunty moved this motion – “Issues a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit for Application No. GE/PP-28482/2015 allowing the construction of buildings and carrying out of works, use of the land at 2-4 Princes Street for a Place of Assembly associated with the Synagogue at 574 Inkerman Road and reduction of the car parking requirement in accordance with the following Conditions….”. The permit was granted, allowing events to occur weekdays until 11pm as well as increasing the number of ‘celebrations’ to 400 patrons in conjunction with normal prayer services. There were 16 objections.

Our concern is not with the application itself but whether Lipshutz should have declared a conflict of interest and removed himself from the chamber. It’s not the first time that the question of conflict of interest raises its ugly head in relation to Lipshutz. We have had numerous instances of his failure to declare what most reasonable people would perceive as either a ‘direct’ or ‘indirect’ conflict of interest. Some examples to refresh people’s memory:

numerous items on the racecourse where both Esakoff and Hyams declared conflicts, yet Lipshutz stated that because he wasn’t a ‘member’ of the MRC he had no conflict of interest!
in discussions on a petition where he, Hyams and Esakoff were named, yet he and the other two voted not to accept the petition
the famous ‘how-to-vote-cards’ episode and the permit granted to Emmy Monash
of course the famous Whiteside dummy spit over a permit for a property in Inkerman Road associated with the Gutnicks and where public open space was ceded to the applicant. Lipshutz’s ‘response’ was to label Whiteside as ‘anti-semitic’. (http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/why-bother-asks-former-glen-eira-mayor-20121022-281jw.html)

But in 2008 he saw fit to declare a conflict on an application for a mere two double storey townhouses in Daley St., Bentleigh – “Cr Lipshutz declared an Interest in this item as he knows the applicant and works with him on matters of communal interest.” (Minutes of 26^th February 2008)

Thus ‘communal interest’ and ‘knows the applicant’ was enough back in 2008 to declare a conflict. What about currently? The image below comes from Page 12 of a document that originates from the applicant for the permit referred to in the opening paragraph. We have also uploaded the full document. (HERE).(Source for the following: http://www.caulfieldshule.com.au/about-us/admin/policies/item/95-child-protection-policy.html)The ombudsman has made it absolutely clear that the public’s ‘perception’ of a conflict is a legitimate concern for any public official as it reduces trust in both the official and the status of local government. Lipshutz did not state at any time that he was the ‘independent member’ for this particular congregation. No records of assembly minutes reported that he had declared any conflicts. No other councillor uttered a word. Perhaps they didn’t know. If that is the case, we believe that it was incumbent on Lipshutz to let them know! How many more times will this councillor ignore the advice of the ombudsman and the constraints of the Local Government Act? And how many more times will councillors allow him to get away with such actions?

March 18, 2016

Secrecy & Stuff Ups

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

Council’s Local Law (yes, the one we’ve been waiting to see ‘revised’ for the past 4 years) states: –Where a question is deemed inappropriate by the Chairperson, the Chief Executive Officer or designated officer shall read to the meeting only the name and suburb of the person and the ground under sub-clause 232(2)(j) on which the question was ruled inappropriate.

This means that the actual question will not be revealed! Unfortunately for council they did publish one question (see below) that was deemed ‘inappropriate’. The alleged ‘justification’ cites Section 232 (j)(iv), which reads –

refers to a matter which would, if answered, breach any provision of the Information Privacy Act 2000 or the confidentiality provisions of the Local Government Act 1989

March 16, 2016

Rumours & The Racecourse – Okotel Resigns!

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[14] Comments

A very strong rumour is making the rounds that Okotel has resigned from Glen Eira Council to pursue her hoped for parliamentary career. We are confident that readers will have a view as to her contribution to this municipality in the three plus years she served as a councillor.

On another issue, last night saw the unanimous vote on the Sounness moved motion regarding ‘noise pollution’ emanating from the Caulfield Racecourse and their ‘music events’. Interestingly, Sounness’ motion was in part for council to ‘liaise with Stonnington’. Subsequent events reveal in glorious technicolor the difference between Glen Eira City Council and Stonnington City Council. The latter has no issue with alerting community groups as to the upcoming events. In Glen Eira, there is silence. Thus residents have to find out for themselves, or from their neighbouring contacts.

Below is the email sent from the MRC’s ‘consultants’ to Glen Eira officers. We have also uploaded their flyer for this event. Questions galore need answering – what will council do to ensure this event is within EPA noise guidelines? Will officers be attending? Will council ensure that traffic wardens are available at 10pm so that attendees can leave the grounds in an orderly fashion? Will they be pursuing this issue with the Minister, the police, the Trustees, or as per normal, keep passing the buck onto everyone else?

From: Dartmoor Consulting Group [mailto:a.young@tpg.com.au]

Sent: Wednesday, 16 March 2016 11:07 AM

To: John Bordignon; shane.cashman@police.vic.gov.au;

SEMRCommunityResilienceCommanders@mfb.vic.gov.au; Keith Franklyn; Ron Torres

Subject: RE: PUBLIC EVENT NOTIFICATION FOR THE CAULFIELD RACECOURSE – NOVEL CONCERT – SATURDAY 19 MARCH 2016

To Whom It May Concern,

Please find attached relevant details pertaining to the above forthcoming public event to be conducted at the Caulfield Racecourse on Saturday 19th March 2016.

Should you have any queries or require any additional information in relation to the scheduled event prior to or during please don?t hesitate to contact me directly at your convenience.

Best Regards

Andrew Young

DIRECTOR

DARTMOOR CONSULTING GROUP PTY LTD

Public Event Compliance/Management Consultants

Project Facilitators

Private Building Surveyors

Postal Address: P.O.BOX 165 : GLEN IRIS VICTORIA : 3146 AUSTRALIA.

Mobile Number: 0412 118 337

Email Address:

a.young@tpg.com.au

March 3, 2016

A Resident’s Point Of View

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

We’ve received the following email as a response to our previous post on the censure motion against Lobo. We’ve put it up in full.

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

The positions of the bullies on our Council are untenable. As can be seen above, they have clearly defamed Cr Lobo. The remaining question is whether there is any defence available to them.

But first a recap. A meeting was held on 20 Oct 2015, without the required notice and with no explanation for lack of notice. The meeting was closed to the public on spurious grounds, as it has since emerged it wasn’t related to protection of council property, and it has not been demonstrated that holding the meeting in public would prejudice the Council or any person. Since we now know what the real business being transacted was, it is clear that holding the meeting in public would not prejudice Council or any person.

The business transacted concerned whether a jewish security firm providing security services to a jewish organisation conducting an event on Council land could carry guns. This wasn’t strictly Council business as Council admits its business was to decide whether to accept a booking and if so, what conditions would be placed on the permit. Nevertheless it gave its imprimatur to the request. When details leaked, there was a furious reaction. Certain members of council, stunned by the criticism of their actions, went on the attack, inveighing against their many critics.

An attempt to remove confidentiality from the secret minutes surrounding their secret resolution was defeated on predictable lines. Cr Lipshutz and Cr Hyams made clear to their faction that under no circumstances did they want what they did exposed.

At a bitter Council meeting held 15 Dec 2015, Cr Hyams attacked anybody who didn’t wholeheartedly support him, which included Crs Lobo and Delahunty. Cr Hyams imputed that Cr Lobo was of “very bad character”. The Mayor allowed Cr Hyams’ tirade to proceed unchecked.

Council has [deliberately?] chosen not to publish what was said, but we have a partial record from Glen Eira Debates and from The Leader. Cr Lobo pointed out, accurately, that personal security “is not our business”. It appears the comments that Council are alleging to be racist and antisemitic are [as reported by The Leader] ““Maybe people in that community wouldn’t have to worry about being attacked if they didn’t draw attention to themselves”. In this entire inept saga Council hasn’t actually made clear what the comments are that it considers to be racist and antisemitic. They were reminded of that by their own lawyer.

Cr Hyams, losing touch with reality but confident of his power-base, called the comments “probably the most disgusting thing I’ve ever heard said in a council chamber”. Cr Pilling in an abuse of his position asked Cr Lobo to withdraw his comments without giving reasons as required by 236(2) and 236(3). Under pressure, Cr Lobo withdrew his remarks.

The Leader wrote this up as “If you say Jews deserve the attacks that happen to them because of the way they behave, then you can’t characterise that as anything other than anti-Semitism,” Cr Hyams said. Note that it is NOT what Cr Lobo said. It is not a fair comment, and probably not an honest opinion given it isn’t based on proper material.

Cr Lobo subsequently published clarifications in The Leader about his remarks. He said, “I am not and never have been in favour of non-police personnel carrying guns in public places” and “My concern was about guns being carried by non-police personnel on council property that belongs to all residents of Glen Eira City”. I share his concerns. I continue to interpret Cr Lobo’s comments as rejecting the exceptionalism involved in a subset of the jewish community expecting, indeed demanding, special privileges.

Fast-forward to the 23 Feb 2016 meeting for yet more spite and insanity, thoroughly documented above. Although Council provided no evidence, no definitions, no arguments, nothing, to substantiate its claims, it decided to advertise its defamatory comments directed at Cr Lobo. The hapless Cr Pilling allowed the jewish councillors to spout their bile, which was mostly irrelevant and should have been the subject of Points of Order on the grounds of irrelevance. What was the relevance of a quote from a letter concerning a german-born physicist? Did Cr Pilling really think it was appropriate to equate Cr Lobo with the Kommandant of Auschwitz?

Cr Lobo has been bullied repeatedly. That’s a fact. I don’t agree with the repeated abuses of points of order to silence him. Whether the motivation is racism, just plain bigotry, or some other reason remains to be seen. I hope Cr Delahunty regrets voting in support of the second Motion after speaking against it.

Cr Hyams made mention of the heightened security environment. The Australian Government has the National Terrorism Threat Level currently set at “Probable”. The likely targets are listed as “military, police and security agencies” although it notes “indiscriminate attacks are increasing, and the risk to the general public in Australia remains”. I searched but I saw no mention of the jewish community as having a different risk profile to the general public.

The Australian Government does provide specific advice to people to minimize their exposure to threats: “Avoid dress and behaviour that might draw attention to yourself”. Council has condemned Cr Lobo for providing the same advice that the Australian Government provides. I look forward to Council explaining itself to the Human Rights Commission.

March 3, 2016

The Censure

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

Pilling moved motion. Seconded by Okotel.

This Council censures Cr Oscar Lobo for his racist and anti-Semitic comments made by him at the Council meeting held on the 15^th December 2015 which as reported online in the local Leader newspaper of the 16th December 2015 were that “Maybe people on the [Jewish] community wouldn’t have to be worried about being attacked if they didn’t draw attention to themselves’”. The Council recognises and acknowledges that Australia is a worldwide leader in multi-culturalism and all communities whether religious, national, ethnic or of whatever nature ought to be able to participate in society without fear or recrimination. The Council unreservedly condemns Cr Oscar Lobo’s comments and disassociates itself from him them as reported in the local Leader newspaper on 16 December 2015. Cr Lobo has been given the opportunity since then by the Councillor group on a number of occasions to apologise and withdraw these remarks. He has chosen not to do so. Council encourages Cr Lobo to undertake counselling and the Council is prepared to facilitate same.

This Motion is to be prominently placed on Council’s website, published in the next Glen Eira News and disseminated to

The Leader Newspaper;
The Australian Jewish News
The Herald-Sun
The Age
The Australian

The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously

PILLING: said he had requested the report and that this is something that ‘shouldn’t happen’ but ‘it did’ and even though it is ‘unfortunate’ council ‘has to deal with it’. Claimed that the motion ‘explains our reasoning and distaste for comments like this’. It also ‘encourages’ the councillor to ‘get counselling’. Pilling’s ‘proudest’ moment as mayor is to officiate at citizenship ceremonies where ‘we get to emphasise what a great country this is’ and where ‘all cultures and religions are equal’. Said that Lobo’s comments at last council meeting and the December 2015 meeting go ‘against all values’.

OKOTEL: said that’s it’s ‘important that as a council we stand together’ and ‘that no-one who makes racist comments’ whether in chamber or elsewhere should go without being accountable ‘for those actions’. ‘It is absolutely appalling’ that such comments ‘could be uttered in this council chamber’. Therefore it’s ‘important’ that council ‘take a strong stance and show the community that that will not be tolerated’. Councillors are ‘leaders in the community’ and therefore have to take a ‘leadership role and show that this is not acceptable’.

LIPSHUTZ: read out from a letter he claimed he had received from an OAM individual (Mr. Goldhammer) which included rhetorical questions about famous Jewish individuals such as Einstein, ‘or is it because they produce doctors, lawyers’ architects and musicians and ‘how do they draw attention to themselves?’ Some of them ‘wear skullcaps’ so they can be identified, like ‘buddhists or for that matter Muslims’. Maybe ‘in your mind they draw attention to themselves because you can’t figure out’ how such a small percentage of jewish people contribute so much to society. They don’t draw attention to themselves ‘but it is you Cr Lobo and people like you’. Lobo should ‘hang’ his ‘head in shame just like the perpetrators of violence’ who place blame on the people. Maybe Lobo ‘falls into that category’ of saying that ‘women who get raped’ bring it on upon themselves? ‘Shame on you’ for your ‘bigotry’. (end of letter). Lipshutz then said he had read a book on the ‘capture of the commandant of Auschwitz’ and this reminded him of Hannah Arendt’s comment ‘the banality of evil’ and ‘you can’t find anyone more banal that Cr Lobo’. Said that Lobo had received the letter and been ‘given every opportunity’ to say ‘I didn’t understand what I said’ or ‘I’m sorry for what I said’. ‘I didn’t mean what I said’ and ‘I apologise’. Claimed that other councillors had also asked him to ‘please say that’. Lobo refused – ‘he won’t say it, he refuses to say it and he won’t turn up’. ‘That is frankly disgusting’. Said that there is ‘no place for bigotry in this council’. Said that if he said that women were to blame for being raped ‘I would be pilloried’ and the same if he said that ‘victims bring it upon themselves’. Lobo ‘has said that about the Jewish community’ and that is ‘reprehensible’ and he should be ‘condemned in the loudest’ manner possible.

Lobo felt so strongly about being a councillor that when he was elected he had ‘a number plate Cr Lobo’. ‘well let his name ring loud and clear in the Australian, The Age’ etc. ‘This man is a bigot’ and Lobo is the ‘one man’ in the council ‘who is racist’. Started speaking about Lobo standing for Mayor and ‘every time’ he didn’t get elected and would say’ you didn’t vote for me because of the colour of my skin’. Said that councillors don’t vote against ‘someone because of their gender’ or their religion. Councillors vote for mayors or deputy mayors ‘because of the person who they are’. Lobo has ‘for some reason a problem about the Jewish community’. ‘Well, I have a problem about him’. Lipshutz said he will continue to have a problem with Lobo until the latter can stand up and say ‘I was wrong’.

ESAKOFF: agreed with Okotel and Lipshutz and thought it was ‘vital’ that Lobo’s comments be ‘condemned’. Said that it ‘concerns me’ that Lobo hasn’t ‘apologised’ and that he is the victim of racism. Claimed that there is an ‘expectation’ that elected people behave with ‘decorum’ and in a ‘respectful and dignified manner.’ Hoped that this was true and that she is ‘saddened’ that the standards may not be fulfilled.

SOUNNESS: said he supports the motion and is looking forward to an apology.

MAGEE: said that what is ‘disappointing’ is that for ‘so many years’ council has worked with Lobo and ignored ‘so many’ of ‘the things he has said’. His response has been ‘English is not my native tongue’ but ‘that should never be used as an excuse’. Said that ‘there’s right and wrong in every language’ and Lobo knows this. Lobo has been given the opportunity to apologise and that ‘he was here half an hour before this meeting’ and then walked out. He was asked ‘to understand that it’s not just anti-semitic but racist’. Went on that Lobo ‘is a decent man – he’s got a lot of decent qualities’ but ‘he has got a flaw that he doesn’t recognise’ in ‘how much his words can hurt’. Said that Lobo doesn’t understand that ‘this isn’t about his religion’ or his being ‘Goan or Indian’. ‘It’s about the things he says and the context’ in which ‘he says them’. Lobo needs to be the councillor that people voted for. The gallery can see that ‘we don’t always agree’ as councillors and sometimes ‘we use theatre’ and ‘language’. Said he has got great respect for the ‘councillor group’ and that when they put up their hands to vote ‘only you know why you voted for something’ but he respects their view. Lobo knows this because he is ‘a grown up’ and ‘has the intelligence to know that’. Hoped that ‘one day’ Lobo would apologise and undertake counselling.

HYAMS: ‘commended’ Pilling and Okotel for their motion especially since they are Mayor and Deputy Mayor and this shows the ‘gravity’ with which they view the situation. Multiculturism is one of the things that is so ‘great about Australia’ and ‘racism is the major threat to multiculturalism’ and is also ‘abhorrent in every way’ and is ‘ultimately responsible for’ some of the ‘greatest crimes ever committed’. As ‘community leaders’ councillors have an ‘obligation to stand against racism’ especially ‘when it occurs in our own council chamber’. ‘There is no question in my mind that Cr Lobo’s comments were racist’. Saying that a ‘minority brings attacks upon themselves’ by ‘drawing attention to themselves’ then that is ‘blaming the victims’ and is ‘therefore undeniably racist’. Quoted from a response by the chair of the Anti-Defamation League on Lobo’s comments – (reading out) that ‘Jews are being blamed for being victims of racial and religious violence’. Letter said that ‘this is one of the oldest and most pernicious anti-semitic myths’. Letter asked Lobo to apologise and that they expected an elected representative to foster ‘unity and not stoke the flames of division’. Hyams hoped that Lobo had read this. Said that multiculturalism is ‘about sharing your culture’ with the community ‘so you draw attention to it’. When Lobo said what he did, Hyams said he asked him to ‘clarify’ and Lobo said what was reported in the Leader. When asked to withdraw ‘he withdrew reluctantly’ and ‘didn’t apologise’. What’s worse is that ‘his behaviour since then has been absolutely appalling’. He has ‘run around telling members of the community that I am bullying him’. At last council meeting when Hyams or Lipshutz spoke ‘he turned his back’ and he ‘suddenly developed a very loud cough when we were discussing this matter’. Thus the ‘perpetrator of the racism showing contempt for the victims of the racism’. Said that it’s like Lobo refusing to apologise for his racism but thinking that ‘we should apologise for objecting to it’. The question then is ‘what do we do about it’. Said the report tabled was ‘general’ and in suggesting a conduct panel, that that was ‘costly and time consuming’ so the motion is better because ‘we send a quick but unequivocal message that comments like that will not be tolerated’.

DELAHUNTY: commented on Hyams use of multiculturalism and that ‘we’ should do more than ‘tolerate’ but ‘celebrate’ different cultures and ‘cooperate’. We are lucky to ‘live’ in such a ‘diverse and multicultural community’. Said that sharing cultures, and it’s important ‘for us to hear’ Lipshutz’s history which he hasn’t mentioned. This is then ‘important’ for ‘how it informs his decision making’ which ‘everyone’s cultural background does’ and that’s why he is so ‘articulate’ and ‘adamant about this particular issue’. Her relatives came ‘on her majesty’s service’ as ‘convicts because they stole stuff’ and they were the ‘first Poles to land in Australia’. ‘So how does that inform my decision making?’ Said it makes ‘her feel very lucky’ and ‘obligated’ and obligated to multiculturalism and to make sure that ‘this great country is better than Cr Lobo imagines it’. Therefore she ‘supports this motion of condemnation’.

PILLING: agreed with comments and thought that ‘ultimately we are sending a strong message to the community’ and it’s in their hands ‘whether people get re-elected’. ‘I hope this sends a strong message’.

MOTION PUT & PASSED UNANIMOUSLY

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

Pilling then moved second motion. Okotel seconded.

The Council censures Cr Oscar Lobo for the remarks made by him that he has been the subject of racism in the Council Chamber. Cr Lobo has been given the opportunity by Councillors on a number of occasions to substantiate his remarks and he has chosen not to respond. Council categorically rejects such allegations as having no truth and deplores that Cr Lobo has sought to divert attention from him by making such unsubstantiated allegations. Council is colour blind and has never discriminated against any Councillors by reason of colour, religion, race, gender or background. Racism and anti-Semitic remarks will not be tolerated. Council encourages Cr Lobo to undertake counselling and the Council is prepared to facilitate same.

This Motion is to be prominently placed on Council’s website, published in the next Glen Eira News and disseminated to

The Leader Newspaper;
The Australian Jewish News
The Herald-Sun
The Age
The Australian

The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously.

PILLING: said as Mayor he was ‘very concerned’ about Lobo and that he had ‘sent him emails’ and ‘approached’ him on numerous occasions for him to ‘re-educate’ himself and ‘think back on what he had done’. ‘He chose not to do’ these things. Said that ‘initially’ councillors ‘tried to be encouraging of some further understanding’ but this is just ‘terrible behaviour’ which council ‘cannot put up with’.

OKOTEL: said that for her ‘there had never been any racism’ from councillors except for his racism. ‘As a person of colour’ she ‘believes that all my councillor colleagues’ are ‘colour blind’. Hoped that Lobo ‘does take the opportunity to re-educate himself’ about ‘what it means to make racist comments’.

LIPSHUTZ: even though he often agrees with Magee he can’t agree that Lobo ‘is a decent man’. Said that in the book on Auschwitz commander ‘he spent his days killing jews in the gas chamber’ and then ‘happily went home and played with his kids’. ‘He was a decent man’ living a ‘normal life’ then. ‘No he wasn’t. He was a monster’. So ‘when someone can stand up and blame his fellow councillors for racism’ then ‘that is not a decent man’. A year earlier Lobo ‘spoke about Australia as a racist country’ and ‘advising migrants not to come to this country’. Australia ‘welcomed him’ so ‘who is racist’?’ Referred to a Hebrew expression which means ‘Never again’. Stated that his parents were ‘concentration camp victims’ and ‘after the war my father killed Nazis’ and ‘he said never again’. As ex president of anti defamation he wanted to ‘make sure that anti-semitism’ would never be ‘tolerated’. So when Lobo can ‘defame the officers around me’ and ‘defame’ councillors by saying ‘he was the victim of racism’ then ‘how dare he’. ‘Everyone knows that he is the only racist here’. Whenever he stood for mayor and was rejected he would say ‘it is because of the colour of his skin’. ‘What nonsense!’. People in gallery who have watched him would ‘realise why he has never been the mayor’. ‘He is an embarrassment to this council’ and ‘it’s got nothing to do with racism’ or the colour of his skin. Thought that it was ‘high time that Cr Lobo understands the absolute contempt this council has of him’. Hoped that the papers publish this and that Lobo reads it so he understands that ‘he is unfit to be a councillor’.

HYAMS: said that what’s even worse is resorting to claims of racisms to ‘use against’ those you don’t like. The Leader reported Lobo’s comments that he has suffered ‘racism’ and that was because Lobo ‘didn’t like that he was being called on points of order’ and ‘because his campaign for the mayoralty wasn’t going as well’ as he had hoped. Said that he’s been ‘accused’ by people of ‘not wanting to vote for Lobo because of the colour of his skin’ and he is offended by this. Lobo ‘has confirmed to me that he does feel that way’. Said that Lobo hasn’t got any proof about racism except ‘that he wasn’t getting his way’. Said that the points of order were raised because Lobo ‘was behaving’ in an inappropriate way and ‘needed to be called to order’. Claimed that the ‘mayoralty isn’t handed around’ to anyone who ‘wants it’. ‘The person must be up to the job’ and councillors have to be confident that they can do the job. Lobo’s ‘behaviour last week shows he is not appropriate for the job’ as does his comments. Claimed he could ‘cite numerous other incidences’. ‘The fact that he blames this on racism without basis proves that he is not an appropriate person to be mayor’. Thought that it was ‘appropriate’ for council to ‘distance ourselves from these racist’ comments.

DELAHUNTY: said that she was ‘a little uncomfortable’ with the motion because Lobo has said that ‘he feels he is being treated differently because of the colour of his skin’. Said ‘I’ve not seen that’ and as Hyams has said he hasn’t provided ‘evidence to support that’. But in Australia to ‘seek redress’ and ‘speak about’ how you feel you’ve been ‘treated differently’ ‘that extends to him as well’. If Lobo feels this way then ‘he is entitled to say so’. Said she hasn’t ‘witnessed it’ nor does she think ‘I’ve done it’. But ‘to put his hand up and to say that’s how he believes he’s been treated’, then ‘that’s his right’. Said that if Lobo were present she would say to him that she’s sorry ‘you feel that way’ and that she doesn’t believe ‘it was anyone’s intent’ but ‘intent is not the test’. Therefore to ‘say he hasn’t the right’ is a ‘little bit uncomfortable for me’. Thought that ‘it was deserving of a broader consultation’ and she wishes ‘that he would have participated in that’. He might have told us ‘how’ he felt we might have ‘treated him unfairly’. There might have been conversations ‘about how that wasn’t the intent and perhaps moved on from that’. So ‘while I don’t believe it to be true’ she agrees with Okotel that the council is ‘blind’ to colour. She supports the motion because ‘factually it reads correctly’.

SOUNNESS: Lobo was elected by the community. From ‘my point of view’ Lobo does do things ‘well’ as part of his ‘service’ to the community. But other ‘parts’ that Lobo does, ‘I have grave questions’. Said the motion uses ‘strong language’ and ‘I am very uncomfortable’ with censure. Said that from the things ‘that I’ve heard – some in private, some in public’, Lobo has had opportunities to ‘substantiate how he has been treated’. Sounness said he would have liked to understand ‘what I might have done’ but ‘that was never brought forward’. He remains uncomfortable ‘from the point of view of the community that elected’ Lobo and ‘he represents that community really well’ but ‘there’s more than just representing’. So he supports the motion.

ESAKOFF: said that ‘there’s no doubt that’ this is ‘uncomfortable’ but the issue ‘is uncomfortable and is an issue we must deal with’. For Lobo ‘to accuse us of racism’ and it’s ‘unfounded’ ‘needs to be censured’. Said that Lobo ‘tries very hard’ for his constituents, ‘there’s no doubt about that’ but ‘there is certainly a problem here’ and ‘I don’t think I need to go any further’.

MAGEE: said that last year when he became mayor ‘I knew where the challenges would come from’. ‘Within a few months’ he was ‘constantly as Mayor calling points of order’ to ‘stop Cr Lobo from saying’. Lobo would ‘start’ and ‘then disappear’ and Magee had to call him back to order ‘many, many times’. Residents then asked Magee ‘why do you do that and you don’t do it for the white fellas?’ Said you ‘can stand’ in Bentleigh or elsewhere and ‘argue it out, but it’s not an argument you are going to win’. Said he ‘put up with this’ for a year. Thought that ‘there is something that we can work with’ in regards to Lobo. ‘we can’t just give up. We need to give him every opportunity’.

PILLING: agreed with speakers and said that this is ‘serious’ and is the first censure motion in his time as councillor. ‘This is a quite serious thing to do’ but it’s ‘something I think we have to do’ and ‘to show the community’.

MOTION PUT AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

March 2, 2016

Politics – Or Racism & Bullying?

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

February 29, 2016

Weasel Words, Gagging & Guns In Park

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Service Performance
[13] Comments

Item 9.8

Delahunty moved motion to accept ‘as printed’. Seconded by Magee. The motion was basically to request a public forum with senior police to discuss ‘the policing of events’.

DELAHUNTY: said that she requested this report a while ago in order to discover the ‘best way to engage the community’ and those ‘responsible’ for ‘providing the safety to the community’ at these events. She wanted a public forum so that those responsible ‘could hear community views’ and how some ‘sections of the community feel unsafe’. Thought that council had a ‘leadership role to play’ to ‘put these two groups together’. Said it’s similar to the request for a forum on sky rail. She asked for a request for a report but didn’t want to waste too much of officer’s time in writing it because ‘time is money’ and to ask for a report is ‘to foreshadow a notice of motion’ but there isn’t the ‘ability to actually bring a notice of motion’ so that’s why there was the request for a report. So a forum is so that people can connect with those responsible for security arrangements and for them to ‘hear’ the views that they ‘feel unsafe on the grounds of their religious observations’. Council can’t put this off ‘for another day’. We need ‘to act, we are leaders in the community’. Said this isn’t a re-examination of the ‘issues raised by the public are right or wrong’. It’s simply to say ‘we’ve heard voices in the community’ that they feel unsafe ‘on the grounds of their religious beliefs’ and that is ‘unacceptable’. ‘We are not responsible for their security but we can certainly put them in touch with those who are’.

MAGEE: people want to have ‘confidence’ that their families are safe and that they ‘get home’ safe. In Glen Eira ‘parts of the community’ don’t ‘feel that way all the time’. Delahunty’s motion therefore wants to get that ‘expertise’ so that council can ‘also hear first hand’ what those ‘fears’ are. It’s important to hear ‘all voices from our great city’. Council should be able to ‘allay those fears’ in our parks.

HYAMS: agreed with the ‘sentiments’ that people should feel safe and the ‘general concept’ of a public forum. He opposes the motion because it doesn’t gel with what the original request for a report asked for. The original request was for information about ‘events on council land and facilities’ which is a ‘very broad spectrum’. This report though concentrates ‘very narrowly on one specific issue that arose only through a leak’. Said that ‘basically leaks cannot be trusted, we all know that’. ‘Leakers can say anything’ but ‘those of us who actually do have the respect’ for ‘our councillors and our colleagues’ stick to the Local Government Act. Said that on the weekend they had 8 or 9 thousand people at Princes park in an ‘event of our own’. ‘We had security there’. That doesn’t get into the scope of this report. The ‘proposed forum is very narrowly focused on one newspaper story’ that ‘came up as a result of this leak’ and it ‘should be focused more on more general matters’. Said he voted for the original request for a report but now he doesn’t think that the report ‘represents what I expected when I voted for it’. Anyone who hires a council facility has to ‘make sure’ that ‘they’ve taken security as well’. Repeated council media release where security is ‘provided in co-ordination with police’. This ‘doesn’t accord with what the report says’. Also council is responsible for public safety but it is ‘detrimental to public safety’ if security measures our given out. This is a result of the leak and the ‘only person’ who voted against the October 20^th item going into ‘confidential was Cr Delahunty’.

Delahunty queried whether this was ‘relevant’. Pilling asked Hyams to explain.

HYAMS: said he wasn’t ‘insinuating’ that Delahunty was the leak and all he is saying is that voting against the confidentiality of the meeting displays a ‘lack of concern for community safety’. ‘I wasn’t implying even that the leaker is in this room’. Foreshadowed that if the motion is defeated he will move that officers prepare another report that is ‘accord with the scope’ of the original request for a report.

LIPSHUTZ: agreed with Hyams. Also ‘cross’ about the leak and that ‘Delahunty has said what she said’ given that ‘she voted against’ confidentiality. Said that the original request was for ‘a very wide ranging report’ and ‘seeks information about all our facilities and not just one particular matter’. But this is ‘all about one particular item’ and that there is ‘an unhealthy emphasis on that particular one’. If council wants to ‘look at security for the community, not just one community’ then ‘one needs to have a fulsome report’ on security and not simply ‘one that involved’ the ‘jewish community’. ‘That’s the elephant in the room’. Delahunty ‘didn’t say that but that’s obviously what she meant’. ‘This report deals with one particular event for the jewish community’. ‘we’re talking about leaks’, ‘firearms, about hiding concealed weaponry’. ‘That’s not what this report is about’. It should be about ‘what does council do in relation to party in the park’ and carols and ‘not one that just involved the jewish community’.

ESAKOFF: agreed with Hyams & Lipshutz and that ‘this report is too narrow’ compared with the ‘description for a request for a report’. She voted for the original request ‘on the basis that it was a broad’ look at all events and ‘this report does not address’ the many events.

OKOTEL: agreed with Hyams and this ‘unfortunately’ arose because of ‘public discussions about what had been confidential’. Said that ‘it is disappointing that the report presented to us does single out one community’. She thought that the ‘intention’ of the report was to have a ‘full’ look at all events and their security arrangements and that isn’t ‘what this report’ does.

SOUNNESS: thought that it’s important to understand the concerns and what ‘security arrangements apply’ to ‘sectors’ of the community and ‘not just the jewish community’. Thought that it could still go to a public forum and ‘have a broader conversation’. ‘There’s a lot of other things that can be mentioned’ like what is happening in the city and that ‘some places may be becoming unsafe’. ‘Having a conversation’ with the police on these things will be ‘very much worthwhile’.

PILLING: agreed that ‘the report is fairly narrow’.

DELAHUNTY: found it ‘bizarre’ on comments that her voting against going to in camera be associated ‘with this’. Said that ‘those two decisions are completely consistent’. ‘I believe in public discussion that is transparent and open’ and ‘if you don’t feel safe that’s not fair and we shouldn’t be putting up with that’. Repeated that this is ‘consistent’ and she’s ‘confused’ as to how they’ve been ‘cobbled together’. Also strange that someone agrees with the ‘sentiments’ and ‘general concepts’ of a motion and then would vote against it on the basis that ‘the words used to get there are a little too narrow’. So if people agree with the concept and the ‘need to get there’ then ‘why do you care about the colour of the car you are going in?’ It doesn’t matter which religion. If people are feeling unsafe ‘it is relevant that they do’. When people are saying they don’t feel safe because of their religion ‘then you’ve got an obligation to act’. It could be Christian, jewish, Buddhist. It ‘doesn’t matter’ whoever it is because ‘council has a role to play and we need to do it quickly’. ‘Putting it off’ because the ‘way’ of getting there ‘is a little too narrow is absolutely just nonsense’. Thought that there’s more going on here and that it’s that ‘people don’t want other issues brought back to the floor’. ‘We are not re-prosecuting those issues. Let’s move forward’. Moving something forward is what they did when they voted for the level crossing forum and it’s what they are going ‘against now’. ‘Talk about inconsistent views. There are some inconsistent views right there’.

MOTION PUT and MOTION LOST. VOTING IN FAVOUR – DELAHUNTY, MAGEE AND SOUNNESS. AGAINST – PILLING, ESAKOFF, HYAMS, LIPSHUTZ, OKOTEL

« Previous Page — Next Page »

Glen Eira Debates