GE Council Meeting(s)

Archived Posts from this Category

February 1, 2016

Street by Street: Vickery

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

Having reduced Bent Street Bentleigh to ‘Calcutta’, developers are now moving into the next street – Vickery St. In the current agenda there is an application for 4 storeys, 47 dwellings over 3 lots (15-19 Vickery). This site backs onto Bent St (14-16) where a permit was granted for 4 storeys and 50 dwellings. Thus 6 houses now make way for 97 units!

But as with Carnegie, where developers first ruined Elliott Avenue, then set their sights on Tranmere, and the next street along, Vickery in Bentleigh is going the same way – all due to its zoning as Residential Growth Zone.

Other properties recently sold or being developed in Vickery include:

24-26 Vickery – sold for $3.6 million (2015)

14 Vickery – permit for 10 x 2 storey townhouses

 

January 30, 2016

Rocky Hits Rock Bottom!

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

Item 9.8 of the current agenda continues the council tradition of presenting officer reports that are sub-standard and which tell only half the story. Here are our explicit criticisms of the Camera Report which was supposed to present evidence of the ‘inconsistencies’ of VCAT decisions:

  • Of the hundreds of cases that have gone to VCAT, Camera plucks out only 6. Why these specific 6 are chosen is not explained.
  • Much vital information such as land size, council accepting amended plans, etc is not reported upon – thereby guilty of selective editing at best, and at worst, misrepresenting the truth.
  • Comparing cases in Minimal Change versus Housing Diversity is like comparing apples and oranges given that the latter has practically no protection written into the planning scheme.
  • Why are there no Residential Growth Zone cases included? – overdevelopment in this zone is surely the biggest complaint from residents? (ie Bent St., Mavho St., Elliott Avenue; Neerim Road, etc. etc.)

We conclude that the report is useless except as another piece of council propaganda and damage control. It fails to reveal what has really happened at VCAT and the role of council’s too frequent incompetence in handling cases.

First off, we wish to highlight several comments made by VCAT members on the cases presented by Camera. They encapsulate everything that is wrong with this planning scheme and why council claims of ‘inconsistency’ (especially in these cases) are hogwash.

“This brings us to the most difficult issue in this case – how does this proposal respect the neighbourhood character? The purpose of the General Residential Zone (GRZ) includes implementing neighbourhood character policy and encouraging development that respects the neighbourhood character of the area. Clause 55 elaborates on this by encouraging development that either respects the existing neighbourhood character or contributes to a preferred neighbourhood character. A preferred character would be one identified through a neighbourhood character policy. In this case, the Council submits there is no preferred neighbourhood character statement or policy because this site is in a Housing Diversity Area. Unfortunately, the Housing Diversity Area Policy provides no helpful guidance on how development in such areas should respect the neighbourhood character. Similarly, the Schedule to the GRZ does not contain any requirements other than the maximum height of 10.5-11.5 metres. So we are left with having to make a decision about how a modern three storey apartment building will respect the existing neighbourhood character”. (from the Penang Street judgement)

There’s also this succinct summation of the problem –

“The residents do not want an apartment building on this site. Many of them are opposed to the significant extent of change envisaged and encouraged for this neighbourhood in the planning scheme. The Tribunal must consider the acceptability of a proposal having regard to the physical context and the planning policies and controls that are in the planning scheme or that are seriously proposed to be included in the planning scheme (e.g. a well advanced planning scheme amendment). In this case, the Council has not advised that there are any proposed planning scheme amendments of relevance. Hence, we must consider and give weight to the planning scheme policies and controls. If the residents consider these controls and policies are not appropriate for this neighbourhood, that is a matter for them to pursue with the Council acting in its role as the planning authority for the municipality (responsible for proposing changes to its planning scheme)”.(Penang St.)

Here are the cases listed by Camera. We will provide the background information that Camera just happened to omit from this report.

4 Lilac St (zoned GRZ) – one lot of 650 square metres. Proposal 3 storey and 10 dwellings

This case boiled down NOT to an ‘inconsistent’ interpretation of council policy but overall developer greed. Here are some quotes from the judgement –

Its sheer three storey presentation to the north is a particular concern, with the skewed visual ‘weighting’ of the building toward the adjacent property to the north when viewed from Lilac Street. It is also relevant that the upper level does not meet the ResCode B17 setback.

This combines with what I regard as a compromised level of internal amenity by virtue of screening for upper level dwellings, a southern orientation for some secluded private open space areas and fenced secluded private open space within the frontage setback.

The aim to fit too much on this site is also evidenced by the extent of boundary construction which includes a vehicle turntable within the basement to provide sufficient space to manoeuvre. It has also resulted in minimal side setbacks for in ground planting to assist a building of a vastly increased scale to integrate within its surrounds.

Significantly the proposed provision of screening to this development, while intended to satisfy ResCode, is excessive and would result in unacceptably diminished liveability for future residents, especially where used on small and confined balconies. For example, on level 2, all windows and balconies for dwellings 5, 6 and 7 are entirely screened.

In addition, it is concerning that Dwelling 3 would be provided with poor solar access to its open space that would not comply with B29 of ResCode.

I regard these aspects of the design as further indicators of excessive development proposed for this site.

 

36 London St (zoned NRZ) – 650 square metres. Two double storeys.

In this case Camera neglects to inform readers that amended plans were submitted by the developer and that apart from a few further ‘modifications’, Council had found these new plans ‘acceptable’. An objector appealed to VCAT. Given that the application basically met all of the ResCode ‘standards’, this decision again had nothing to do with being consistent or inconsistent, but adhering to what the planning scheme said. In this example Camera quotes council’s concerns about ‘upper floor and bulk’ but he neglects to state the following –

The Council supports the amended design response of increased setbacks from the eastern boundary of Unit 2 that faces Ms Rodger’s property. The amended plans propose 2m at ground level and 2m up to almost 4m of the first floor. The Council believes these setbacks provide sufficient visual relief from building bulk because of the resulting vertical and horizontal articulation, and that the setbacks will allow an acceptable degree of landscaping.

It is common ground between the parties that standard B17 is not only met but that the proposed side (and rear) setbacks readily exceed those that would be calculated under this formula. The dispute about this proposal is whether the amenity objective will be still met notwithstanding this compliance with B17. To a lesser, but no less relevant degree, issues are also raised about neighbourhood character of the building form.

The rear setbacks of 11m at the upper level and 10m of the lower level are almost three times the rear setback requirement of 4m under schedule 1 of the zone. In the context of its relationship to the adjoining open space to the west, I agree with the Applicant that the combination of these setbacks and the building forms articulation provide an acceptable level of relief from building bulk and massing.

 

4-6 James st (zoned GRZ) – land size is 2462 square metres. Proposal is 3 storeys and 45 dwellings.

Being within a residential area very close to the commercial area of the neighbourhood centre, high density residential development is expressly encouraged by local policy. There is a clear strategic direction for such areas

The proposal accords with the policy at clause 22.07-3.1 to ‘Encourage the consolidation of sites to promote residential development opportunities’ in the residential areas of Housing Diversity Areas. It is also policy to ‘Encourage a decrease in the density of residential development as the proximity to the commercial area of the neighbourhood centre decreases’. Conversely, an increase in density is to be encouraged on sites close to the commercial area. The subject land is very close to the core of the activity centre/commercial area, in that the laneway to the north of the subject land is the boundary of the commercial area.

With respect to the site context, it must be appreciated that the neighbouring properties are also within a Housing Diversity Area and are thus candidates for a change in character. In particular, I agree with Ms Bowden that there is no rationale to modify the proposal to be more deferential to residential neighbours such as property to the north. Indeed, an application to redevelop 2 and 2A James Street was lodged this year. The plans tendered by Ms Bowden show a three level building accommodating six attached townhouses. The application has not yet been advertised, and it may be a long time before a development is approved, but there is clearly an intention to redevelop that land. Furthermore, the owner of the land to the north offered no objection to the proposed development on the subject land.

The immediate context includes the development at 18-20 Etna Street. The Tribunal proceeding regarding that site was an appeal by objectors against the Council’s decision to issue a permit for a four storey development. There is also a four storey development on the southwest corner of James Street and Glen Huntly Road, a short distance to the north of the subject land.

No concerns have been raised by any third parties about the impact of the proposed development on neighbouring properties.

 

Prince Edward avenue (724 square m) (zoned GRZ) – proposal was 3 storeys and 10 dwellings

In this case, greed is again the main culprit

In principle, I consider that the zone, the absence of overlays, the consideration of relevant planning policies and the locational attributes all lend support to a more intensive development on the review site. Although residents may prefer medium density developments of not more than two or three double storey townhouses, that intensity of development is inconsistent with the extent of built form expected within a neighbourhood centre and in a housing diversity area.

However I make the point that more intensive development does not necessarily mean that individual lots along Prince Edward Avenue  will be capable of accommodating three storey apartment style buildings containing ten dwellings. It may be, for example, that individual lots are unable to comfortably accommodate such development and that lot consolidation will provide a means whereby such buildings can be comfortably accommodated in this area. It is certainly the case that policy at Clause 22.07-3 encourages lot consolidation to promote development opportunities.

They also concern those ResCode requirements which are not subject to assessment against a numeric standard but which, when taken together, suggest the proposal is trying to do ‘too much’ on a single width suburban site. These include the location of ground level open space for Dwellings 1 and 2 in the front setback behind a 1.8 metre high fence, the location of the primary area of open space off the living area for Dwelling 2 on the south side of the building and shadowed during the relevant equinox assessment period (the secondary open space for this dwelling in the front setback is accessed through a bedroom), the small 8 and 8.4m2 first floor balconies at the rear screened on all sides, and all upper floor windows except those facing the street have high sill heights or are screened to avoid overlooking. A number of these shortcomings were discussed at the hearing and could be addressed by permit conditions requiring changes to the design. However, those changes do not address the issues of scale and density which I have discussed earlier in my reasons.

Penang st (zoned GRZ)

This judgement basically says it all. Policy is adhered to throughout and council’s ineptitude is also clearly evident. Please note that this case involves 2 judgements. In the first, the VCAT member made an interim order requiring amended plans. These ‘new’ plans he deemed to have met all conditions required. The following quotes are from both judgements – again something that Camera does not mention.

From interim order – Whilst we are cognisant of the residents’ submissions and photographs tendered about the overland flow, the view of the Council is that this site is not affected by a probable 1% in any one year occurrence of flooding from the local Council drainage system; and the view of Melbourne Water is the northeast corner of the site is below the applicable flood level for the  Penang Street  road reserve. The amended design addresses the potential for flooding of the basement in a manner that is acceptable to Melbourne Water. For these reasons, we are now satisfied that the implications associated with the potential for overland flow have been fully considered by the relevant authorities. In absence of any further submissions or evidence regarding the flooding potential of this site, we must give weight to the views of the relevant authorities. As such, there is insufficient reason to refuse this proposal on the basis of this issue.

This site is a consolidated parcel of land comprising two residential lots at the southeast corner of  Penang Street  and Graham Avenue. Apartment developments already exist in the neighbourhood centre close to McKinnon Road. This proposal for a further apartment building contributes to the mix of dwelling types that are encouraged. For all of these reasons, an apartment building on this site is an acceptable planning outcome.

If there was any doubt about the extent of change envisaged for this neighbourhood (e.g. units and townhouses rather than apartments), the nomination of a maximum building height clarifies this. A building height of 10.5-11.5 metres is not akin to the mostly two storey recent developments referred to by Mr Ziltzer. Rather, it is a three storey building height. This means a three storey apartment building on this site is an acceptable planning outcome.

The Council does not oppose the proposed reduction of one on-site visitor car space and raises no concern about any impact upon available on-street parking. On the basis of Ms Dunstan’s evidence and the Council’s support for this aspect of the proposal, one additional residential visitor car parking on the street is an acceptable outcome that will not adversely impact upon the general availability of on-street parking.

The residents are concerned that the traffic generated by this proposal will adversely affect traffic safety in the surrounding road network. They made mention of recent accidents involving bicycles and pedestrians in the surrounding major roads, particularly McKinnon Road, that are not included in Ms Dunstan’s evidence. Their concern is not shared by the Council or Ms Dunstan.

There will be shadow cast by the proposed building towards Claremont Terrace. However, the setbacks of the building from Claremont Terrace comply with the clause 55 standards in regard to overshadowing of open space and north facing windows. This is not to say that this proposal will not have an impact. It will, but the impact is acceptable and continues to provide for some sunlight access to the north facing units and the communal open space area along the north side of Claremont Terrace.

We acknowledge that the development of a three storey building on this site will impact upon the extent of westerly sunlight enjoyed by 6  Penang Street  . The planning scheme only seeks to provide a level of protection to northern sunlight, so there are no design standards relevant to the loss of morning or afternoon sunlight. When this fact is combined with the context of a residential zone that allows for buildings of between 10.5 and 11.5 metres in height, the loss of afternoon sun is an acceptable amenity impact in this case.

Overall, there will be a significant change to the west side of 6  Penang Street  and the outlook from the west facing windows and from within the rear open space area will be different. This extent of change is acceptable because of the planning controls and policies that apply to this area.

The Council made no submissions about this issue (flooding) during the hearing. Its drainage engineering referral comments request no net increase in peak stormwater runoff in Council’s drainage network with post development stormwater discharge to be maintained at pre-development level for 10 year ARI. There is no mention of whether there are any potential overland flow issues for the basement car park or the ground floor apartments, particularly those cut into the natural ground level. The Applicant submits this issue is a matter for the drainage authorities to address by reviewing the SBO in light of submissions such as those made by these residents. The Applicant sought advice from the Council during the hearing about this issue. We were told the Applicant was unable to obtain any information about a flood level for this site, and that the Applicant was advised there is no proposal to place a flooding overlay on this site.

CONCLUSION

There is absolutely nothing in Camera’s report to support the contention that VCAT is ‘inconsistent’ in applying council policy. We would in fact argue the reverse – that in every single one of the decisions listed, the VCAT member has diligently and conscientiously applied council policies as stated in the woeful planning scheme. The fault lies not with VCAT in these instances but with council’s determination to continue to pull the wool over residents’ and councillors’ eyes. It is surely time that council stopped pretending that its scheme is adequate and went back to the drawing board to come up with a planning scheme that is worthy of the name. The first step for councillors is to insist that officer reports are up to the necessary standard. In this instance, Camera’s effort must be relegated to the dust bin!

 

January 20, 2016

Letters To The Editor

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

crlobo

 

December 28, 2015

Maintaining The Status Quo!

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

The deadline for submissions to the Local Government Act Review has now passed. Glen Eira has placed its effort on its website – after the fact of course and in direct contrast to other councils who sought a formal council endorsement (via resolution) on their submissions.

Councils generally have tended to advocate for the status quo, thereby maintaining their ‘independence’ and powers to do as they like. But as per usual, very few of these other councils are as conservative and anti change as Glen Eira. Here are some quotes from Glen Eira’s submission –

On mandatory versus normative legislation – We feel that the legislation should as a general principle provide consequences for noncompliance. But in this case, where it’s a matter of more general principles, there needs to be a reliance on common sense elements – much as it currently is.

On elections and set questions for candidates – We don’t agree with the suggestion that all candidates should answer standard questions, this should be left to the discretion of each candidate. If they don’t adequately communicate with voters they will not be successful.

On banning developer donations – We don’t agree that donations should be banned, nor that certain categories of donors should be banned. Banning categories of donors could unduly favour certain types of candidates over others. Conflict of interest provisions, which would prevent councillors from voting on anything that benefits major donors, should be sufficient to cover this.

Roles of councillors and Mayor – Clarifying the role of the Mayor is a good idea but we don’t agree that this should mirror either the NSW or QLD model  – AND

We don’t believe councillors should be full time. This would dilute the pool of those able to stand. Tiering for payments is unfair. Everyone should get the same pay – it’s the same amount of work regardless of the population of the Council.

The Mayor should have a casting vote to resolve deadlocks. It should be up to Councils to determine the extent of public participation in decision-making, not legislated, beyond what is currently contained in s223.

Local laws including meeting procedure should be left to each council to determine. Indexing fines is a good idea.

On reporting and ‘efficiency’ – We oppose the suggestion to require the publication of comparative data for all services – this would be a large impost on resources that should be directed to delivering services

On conflict of interest – Where councillors have a conflict, they should be entitled to be present for the debate, but not to vote. Often, as in the case of conflicting duties, the councillor excluded may have valuable insight into the subject at hand.

By way of contrast, here are some extracts from other councils –

BAYSIDE – The discussion paper raises the practice of councils appointment of special committees to undertake a number of non-statutory, operational roles for example managing sporting pavilion hire art gallery etc. It is suggested that this model should be explored further to enable community involvement in the management of local facilities.

STONNINGTON – There should be a uniform state-wide compulsory Code of Conduct for Councillors. There should be a uniform state-wide compulsory Code of Conduct for officers.

MELBOURNE – Regardless of role, it is essential that the governance requirements of the MAV are updated to reflect current public sector best practice and to tackle some current challenges. The MAV should be subject to the same openness and transparency requirements (including freedom of information) as other public bodies established under legislation. Areas that could be covered in a new Act include:

  • employment of senior officers
  • disclosure of senior officer remuneration in its annual reports
  • management and disclosure of conflicts of interest

BOROONDARA – to address the insufficiency of comparable information about candidates. The answers to these questions be made available to voters in the form of a candidate information template in the postal ballot packs provided by the VEC and this information be made available on the VEC website. While candidates would have the right to withhold answers to some or all of the prescribed questions, all their answers (including ‘no response’) would be made available to voters.

YARRA – The current minimum standards for public exhibition and submissions to Council Planning and budgeting processes act as a barrier to the development of more meaningful consultation methodologies. By effectively reducing the time available for other forms of consultation and participatory decision-making, the exhibition process is an inhibitor rather than facilitator of community engagement

 

December 24, 2015

Merry Xmas & The Year In Review

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

seasons-greetings2

2015 has definitely been a very mixed bag. Here is our summation –

The Positives

  • The resignation of Andrew Newton and another senior bureaucrat.
  • The fallout from the residential zones is now obvious to all and councillors are feeling the pressure
  • A far more enlightened and knowledgeable electorate on planning
  • 2016 is an election year.
  • Rate capping imposed

The Negatives

  • Further evidence in recent days of a dysfunctional and divided council
  • Major travesties of justice and continued ignoring of community – Frogmore, the MRC and C60 developments, Caulfield Park conservatory, destruction of street after street as a result of the new zones
  • Ratepayer funds spent on disseminating lies and propaganda as damage control – ie the 11 cents flyer
  • Voting cliques
  • No tree register
  • No amendments to curb overdevelopment & no review of planning scheme
  • No consistency in councillors’ arguments
  • Deplorable governance continues
  • Sub standard officer reports
  • Pavilions that continue to come in well over budget – Duncan MacKinnon for one.

We have undoubtedly ignored plenty of other events/issues that could have been included in the above. Please feel free to add your own.

Finally, thank you to all our readers and contributors and thank you again to our council for it is they who provide the multitude of fodder for our analyses. We are pretty optimistic about the future and the potential for major change and improvement. As the following says – it has started but still a long way to go before we get a fully transparent and accountable council. That in the end will depend on voters and candidates who do give a damn about residents.

2016

 

December 22, 2015

More On ‘Guns In Parks’

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

Approval sought to arm private security guards on Glen Eira Council property

December 22, 2015 12:00am

Cheryl Balfour

Glen Eira Council received a request to allow armed guards on its property. A CONFIDENTIAL report has confirmed a private security company sought approval from Glen Eira Council for guards to carry guns in public places, just two months ago.

The council has dodged questions on the issue since Caulfield Glen Eira Leader first revealed on December 7 that the issue went before a confidential council meeting on October 20.

The issue has caused friction at the council, with Cr Oscar Lobo accused of “anti-semitism” for comments he made during a council debate about public security. Cr Oscar Lobo’s comments during a council debate have incensed some in the community.

Leader has since obtained the confidential ‘Change to Council’s Risk Profile’ report tabled at the November 27 Audit Committee meeting. The report says: “On October 6, 2015 a non-government security group wrote to council seeking authority for some of its members to carry concealed firearms at events held on council property”.

Councillors Mary Delahunty and Thomas Sounness confirmed a letter from the Community Security Group seeking consent for security measures for Jewish events going forward was circulated among councillors on October 6.

The risk profile report states, “council officers would not give permission for an event under these circumstances but would suggest alternative venues for consideration”.

It says council management advised that if the council proposed to authorise the request, all security personnel must be licenced and have Australian citizenship or Australian residency. Firearms management should comply with legislation and evidence of public liability insurance of $20m must be provided, according to the report.

The document says that after the October 20 special council meeting, the security group “advised Council that it held public liability insurance of $20m on the following basis: “use of guns — covered”.

Minutes show a majority of councillors voted to close the October 20 meeting to the public and that “matters affecting the security of council property” were discussed.

Sources have confirmed to Leader off the record that councillors voted to allow armed guards on council property, including parks.

Mayor Neil Pilling again refused to comment and directed Leader to a council statement that “there is no authorisation by Glen Eira Council for the carrying of firearms for any current or future event anywhere in Glen Eira”.

The statement does not mention past events.

Victoria Police spokesman Acting Superintendent Richard Koo said police authorised individuals to provide armed guard services. “Provided a private security guard holds the appropriate sub-activity of armed guard on their licence there is no legislative restriction on where the activity can be carried out so long as the individual is abiding by the conditions stipulated on their licence and legislation.”

Police confirmed armed security guards could protect property and cash in transit only.

Government spokesman Kosta Pandos said it was “a matter for the council, however any decisions such as this must comply with the law”. “I can say that the government wants to see less guns on our streets and not more.”

Caulfield State Liberal MP David Southwick said the matter was between police and the council.

Source: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/leader/inner-south/approval-sought-to-arm-private-security-guards-on-glen-eira-council-property/news-story/bb16a685455c17183177444c2a3e0405#load-story-comments

letter

 

 

December 20, 2015

MRC & Records Of Assembly

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance
[4] Comments 

Instead of the usual practice of merely ‘noting’ and accepting the records of assembly, Magee moved an alternate motion and was seconded by Delahunty. Hyams, Lipshutz and Esakoff declared a conflict of interest and left the chamber. The motion reads –

That the record of the above assemblies be received and noted and that council writes to the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning and asks if the code of conduct adopted at the most recent meeting of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trust meets the compliance standards outlined in the Auditor General’s recommendations. Specifically recommendation 2 which deals with the governance framework and the need for contemporary and public reporting. And recommendation 7 which challenges the Trust to address their community engagement obligations.

MAGEE: said that the Auditor General in September 2014 released ‘an absolute scathing’ report on the trustees and the department. ‘It showed that the community were ignored’ and that ‘the land was almost totally utilised for racing’. On 21st November before the election Lisa Neville wrote to Magee (and he quoted) that Labor supports the Auditor General recommendations and that they would ‘implement the recommendations’ if elected. The records of assembly show that Delahunty asked the councillor trustees to ‘report on the latest’ trustee meeting. They said that a ‘new code of governance was voted in’ which set down that ‘no trustee is allowed to speak outside the trust’ and nor can they ‘say what is happening inside the trust meetings’. The Auditor General was ‘scathing on this’ and his recommendations were ‘that this was not to continue’. Magee then quoted Greg Sword from September 2014 where ‘the trust welcomes the Auditor General’s report’. He then said that what is ‘disturbing’ about the code is that it ‘gags, silences’ and stops trustees from ‘saying what happens on a $2 billion community asset’. This asset ‘has seen over 400 children’ from Glen Eira ‘having nowhere to play sport’. ‘What’s most upsetting’ is that the code of conduct was ‘written by the Victorian Government Solicitor’. Didn’t think that Neville was even ‘aware of this’. Said he’s ‘drafted a letter’ and will be telling her that the Government Solicitor has drafted this code in ‘total contradiction’ to the Auditor General’s report. Went on to say that the ‘last time’ the trust even produced minutes was in February 2014 – 7 months before the report and since then ‘they have met once’. So ’14 months’ after the report the ‘trustees decide to have a meeting’. And the ‘first thing they do’ is pass this code of governance ‘gagging all trustees’. So ‘you, I don’t know what’s happening with a $2 billion asset’. Said his letter will be asking that they ‘dismiss’ this ‘anti-social, dysfunctional, secretive organisation’ which has ‘no place in contemporary Australia’ and a ‘framework of governance’. ‘There is no standards within this board of trustees’ that recognises the community’s use. Said the trustees had this ‘little consultation about the new plan’. ‘No one has seen the plan’ or heard of it. So when the trustees are talking to the community about what they want, ‘one-third of the trustees have actually produced their own plan’ and this was ‘to lock everybody out’ and from what they’ve heard ‘night racing’ is part of the proposed plan. Said that the trustees at the first opportunity have chosen to ‘reverse, go backwards’ and they are ‘now back in the 1800 hundreds where we should be seen but not heard’. They see the racecourse ‘as theirs’ and the activities on this land as ‘making money for them’ – their Tabaret makes $12 million ‘off crown land and very little of that finds its way back to the community’. Ajax footy club ‘train and play outside Glen Eira because there’s no space’. Games are ‘cancelled’ because of no space. ‘I can’t handle that. I can’t take that. I can’t allow that to continue’. He will continue to write ‘letter after letter’ and when they say ‘they will do something’ ‘nothing has been done’. Quoted Andrews on the Auditor General’s report welcoming the recommendations and said that it was not ‘worth the paper it was written on’. (Melodramatically) tore the sheets of paper in half!

DELAHUNTY: said it was hard to follow Magee because he speaks with ‘such passion’. Said they don’t know what’s going on. Also that there is a ‘theme’ running through the first two items on the agenda tonight – ‘an open and transparent body should be the only body’ that is acceptable. Said this arose because of her question to the councillor trustees asking for an update from the trustee meeting and ‘they provided it as best as they could’. Said that the motion is relevant to ‘us’ because it seeks to know how ‘constraining and blocking and gagging code of conduct’ meets any of the Auditor General’s recommendations. And ‘how you are going to adopt a governance framework that is consistent with contemporary standards’. Said that they thought they ‘had some tractions’ with the Auditor General’s report and whilst hundreds are being turned away from sporting activities ‘is heartbreaking and we won’t rest’ until this is resolved.

OKOTEL: endorsed Magee and said that a year ago ‘we were all pleased and optimistic’ about the report and they had hoped that ‘some real action’ would be taken. Now when ‘not one single recommendation’ has been implemented ‘it is devastating’ for ‘those sporting clubs’. Thanked Magee for the motion and ‘encouraged’ him to ‘continue advocate on this issue’.

LOBO: can ‘go on an on playing the broken record’ but nothing will change unless they lose the backing of the Minister and unless ‘we all go to VCAT’. ‘Don’t waste our time. Fight for the residential codes rather’ than this ‘which will not come to you’.

PILLING: also ‘endorsed’ the ‘long’ issue and both sides of politics are involved. ‘We need more sports ovals’ and for the MRC ‘to consider the community far more’. Things can be done but just needs ‘the political will from the State Government’.

MAGEE: the Government Solicitor also gave ‘advice’ that the trustees ‘should adopt the committee of management guidelines’ . These ‘guidelines state very clearly that all meetings should be open publically’ and that ‘minutes should be made public’. He also ‘recommended that 6 of the trustees have conflicts of interest’ and shouldn’t vote on ‘matters’ dealing with the MRC. ‘those 6 trustees agreed that they would disagree’ and ‘they voted that down’. ‘They have said that they will vote on anything that relates to them’. Spoke about leases and how the MRC writes the leases and then ‘sublets’ to members of the trust. ‘If this is not an absolute travesty of justice’ he is tired of writing to politicians and ‘everyone says ‘ugggh’ ‘not touching that!’ Finished by ‘surmising’ that the councillor reps on the trustees were ‘very disappointed’ by the code of governance and that ‘they cannot tell us, they cannot communicate with us’. ‘this is not their fault’. Nothing will change until ‘this group united (15 trustees) will stand up for residents’.

MOTION PUT AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

COMMENTS

  • We do not disagree with any of Magee’s criticisms of the trustees as stated above. However, we do find it terribly ironic and hypocritical that not 5 minutes previous, Magee, Pilling and Okotel were part of the successful gagging and silencing of Delahunty’s motion. Their votes helped cement the ‘secrecy’ and dysfunctional council that we now have. We suggest that all of the criticisms levelled at the MRC and the trustees would appear to apply equally to the vast majority of Glen Eira City councillors and council’s total disregard for good governance and open, transparent government!
  • If our trustees are so ‘desperately disappointed’ then why don’t they resign? Given that their presence is totally ineffectual, then surely a mass resignation will achieve far more in terms of publicity and condemnation of the trustees?
 

December 18, 2015

Round 3 – Hyams V Delahunty

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

NEWS FLASH: Peter Waite announced his resignation to staff yesterday.

Once again under ‘Urgent Business’ Hyams and Pilling moved the following motion (our emphases in bold)

Crs Hyams/Pilling

That Council release, distribute to the Leader newspaper and place on Council’s website the following statement:

‘At its Special meeting of October 20, Council considered a motion in the confidential part of the meeting that related to the provision of security services on Council property. Council stands by its decision to consider that item confidentially, as we give priority to public safety, and believe it is potentially detrimental to public safety if details of security measures and any limitations on those are revealed to those who may wish to disrupt or attack an event – operational matters related to security are not generally put into the public domain, nor should they be.

However, Council wishes to make clear the following points:

o As stated in a statement dated December 11, there is no authorisation by Glen Eira Council for the carrying of firearms for any current or future event anywhere in Glen Eira;

o Council is aware of no specific threat beyond the heightened alert;

o At recent major events on Council parks where extra private security has been provided, such security has been provided in coordination with the police, and the police have been informed of the security measures to be taken; and

o Council’s role in such events is to decide whether to accept a booking for a Council venue and, if so, on what conditions’.

Note: when a seconder was called for the above it took an unprecedented amount of time for a councillor to put up his hand. Pilling, rather sheepishly, eventually did.

HYAMS: he thought that ‘the motion speaks for itself’ so didn’t have anything to say ‘at this stage’.

Pilling also didn’t have anything to say and called for speakers against.

DELAHUNTY: said that there is ‘denigration’ of the ‘processes which brought us to this point’. Agreed that a meeting took place on the 20th October but the meeting was ‘constituted’ to consider the ‘security of council property’ and said that ‘at no point was that raised’ so that the statement is therefore ‘incorrect’ and ‘brings into question whether or not the original meeting’ was legal and according to the Local Government Act. The Act ‘compels us to consider only those items that are advertised to the public and no other’. Said that Hyams is ‘now telling us that we didn’t get to the business that was advertised to the public’. She’s against the motion because it ‘asks me’ to ‘ratify a decision that I didn’t endorse in the first place’. Said that she doesn’t believe it accords with the guidelines of the Local Government Act and doesn’t agree that ‘operational matters relating to security’ shouldn’t ‘generally’ be in the ‘public domain’. Didn’t agree that this could be ‘detrimental to public safety’. Gave examples of grand final day at the MCG where ‘police issues statements’ about their arrangements to ensure ‘security at those events’. Claimed that ‘this all aids us in feeling safe’. Said that council ‘isn’t experts on this – they are experts on this’ (ie police). Thought there was ‘good intent’ about the motion but it ‘underlines’ support for what went before and that when ‘we allow those discussions’ to happen ‘behind closed doors it doesn’t have the level of debate’ that the public expects. Said again that she is not having a go at the ‘intent’ but can’t agree with the part of the motion which refers to the meeting of October 20th because ‘we told the public we were doing something else’ and that is contradictory to ‘the Act’.

SOUNNESS: said that he is aware of what ‘needs to be said’ and ‘how I can say it’. Said he has got a ‘lot of concern’ about how ‘my country, Australia’ can be a safe place for everyone. For him there needs to be ‘clear markers’ as to who has the responsibility for ensuring it is a safe place. Said ‘I find it uncomfortable that Council can be in a position behind closed doors’ about something that he doesn’t think is ‘core business’. Other ‘sectors’ do this ‘far better’. Admitted he was ‘beating around the bush’ but wanted to say that the way that councils should go about security is of being ‘more accepting and calming fears’. Repeated that this was again ‘beating around the bush’ but didn’t feel that he could ‘say anymore’.

MAGEE: said this was about discussion in camera and that in ‘my time as a councillor we’ve always taken such decisions’ very seriously. Claimed that these decisions were based on ‘merit’ and ‘information’ and councillors make the decision as ‘individuals, moms and dads’. When they make decision to move in camera and sometimes after going into confidential mode they wonder ‘why we even bothered’ so ‘until we get there’ they find that the ‘information can’t be’ revealed before ‘we go in camera’ and ‘sometimes’ when they are in camera they think it ‘shouldn’t have been in camera’. ‘But at the point where you are asked’ is the important decision and he prefers to decide on ‘the side of caution’ and how he ‘believes my community wants me to act’. And if he doesn’t think it should be in camera then ‘I will make my voice known within that forum’. Didn’t want people to think that ‘moving into in camera’ was just something council did to be ‘blasé’ or ‘just being secretive’. Repeated that moving into confidential meetings is ‘very serious’ and that councillors do it with ‘the utmost respect for people’.

LIPSHUTZ: said we ‘live in the real world’ and there is a ‘world wide threat against Australia’ and against ‘Western civilisation’ and the ‘impact on all of us’. So no matter how ‘we deplore’ this and ‘feel uncomfortable’ about it ‘I feel more comfortable to know that our government’ and others are ‘doing something to protect us’. Said it was the ‘height of naivety’ to expect authorities to disclose what they are doing. Some might disclose that ‘yes we have police there’ but ‘do you think that’s the only’ security they have? Claimed to have ‘connections with a number of security agencies’ and ‘you don’t go and tell the public every operational matter’ because ‘if you are a terrorist here is what we are going to do’. You don’t do this. You give the public ‘some comfort’ but what is not revealed is the ‘second layer’ – the ‘other security measures’. If you do tell everything then ‘you are almost guaranteed that there will be a tragedy’. Council has the ‘same role as government, the same role as State Government’ so ‘if there is a situation where we believe’ there is a ‘threat, wherever it may be’ you then ‘have another layer’. Last week council had Carols in the Park and there were police there but also ‘private security guards’ and that was because ‘council took the view that we needed it’. Said he wanted a ‘safe place’ and didn’t think it was ‘acceptable to have armed guards outside Jewish schools’, or synagogues and that his grandchildren ‘have to hide behind fences’ because of the ‘fear of threats to the Jewish community’. So ‘when council faces an issue where there may be a threat’ and ‘we’ve been told by our Prime Minister’ that ‘we can expect’ a tragedy. ‘We don’t know where, we don’t know when’. Thus ‘we have heightened security’ and ‘don’t go around and tell the public this is what we’re going to do’. Councillors are ‘responsible’; they ‘do deal with the police’ and ‘liaise with them and get their advice’ but ‘ultimately we make a decision as a council’ what happens in our parks and ‘we then determine the conditions’. There was ‘no actual threat that we were told about’ but ‘there is a general threat to every institution’ in the country. Because of this they have been ‘responsible as councillors and to do otherwise would be negligence’.

Delahunty then wanted to move an amendment that part of Hyams’ motion be deleted.

Points of order from Hyams in that ‘you completely wipe the motion and instead put something else’. Delahunty agreed – ‘quite right’. Pilling said that he ‘has to hear’ what is proposed before he can over-rule. Delahunty then read out her motion and the important part was that ‘council release the minutes of that meeting’ (October 20th) and that ‘those minutes cease to be confidential’. Hyams didn’t accept the proposed amendment. Pilling agreed that ‘this is so far removed’ from the original motion.

MOTION PUT – VOTING IN FAVOUR – HYAMS, LIPSHUTZ, ESAKOFF, MAGEE, PILLING, OKOTEL.

VOTING AGAINST – DELAHUNTY, SOUNNESS, LOBO

Under ‘Urgent Business’ Delahunty tried to move the motion in its own right. Lobo seconded.

Crs Delahunty/Lobo

That an item relating to the Minutes of the Special Council Meeting commencing at 7.59PM on 20 October 2015 dealing with security cease to be Confidential and be released to the public be dealt with as Urgent Business.

 

This attempt was voted down. Readers should note that since this was not accepted as ‘Urgent Business’ there was no opportunity to even debate the motion. And of course, since Glen Eira does not have Notice of Motion, again the issue will not be debated in open chamber.

Delahunty asked for a division on the voting but under the Local Law there is no facility to impose this requirement on Urgent Business. Here however is how the vote went-

AGAINST – LIPSHUTZ, HYAMS, ESAKOFF, OKOTEL, MAGEE, PILLING.

Voting to treat the matter as Urgent Business – Delahunty, Lobo, Sounness.

 

December 17, 2015

Round 2 – Lobo V Hyams

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

We draw readers’ attention first off to yesterday’s Leader article.

The following occurred towards the end of the meeting after countless flurries across the chamber on previous items and the defeat of another attempt by Delahunty to pass a motion. The item under discussion here was Delahunty’s Request for a Report following the two earlier unsuccessful attempts.

++++++++++

Delahunty moved that a report be done to ‘inform councillors of the best way to engage the community and police’ in an ‘open forum’ to ‘discuss the security of events’ on council land. The report should ‘also explain council’s role in managing risk’ and the role of police. Okotel seconded.

DELAHUNTY: said that what she was hoping to do was ‘provide some moving off point’ from this ‘quagmire we find ourselves in’ and that ‘sections of our community feel more at risk than others’. Said that this was ‘unacceptable’ to all. Agreed with Lipshutz that it was ‘unacceptable’ to have armed guards ‘outside schools’ and synagogues. Council’s ‘role is one of leadership’ and ‘bringing the parties together’ so that people can understand and ‘question those feelings of a lack of safety’. Wanted the police to ‘hear those concerns’ and for them to ‘make suggestions as to what role they can play’ in alleviating these feelings of insecurity. Said that it is ‘right’ that ‘I want a little less guns’ and want ‘people in the community to come together and to discuss it’. Hoped that ‘we can move forward from here’ and wanted to ‘progress the issue and do something about it’. Said that what ‘we really need to do is engage in conversation’ and that’s the objective of the report request.

OKOTEL: said security is ‘of great importance’ to residents and thought a forum as a means ‘to commence dialogue’ was a good idea and would hopefully bring ‘tangible outcomes’. The report focused on events but she hoped it would be the ‘springboard’ for a wider discussion on ‘community safety’. Said that residents had contacted her about safety issues ‘around train stations’ for example. So hoped this could be the ‘beginning of an ongoing dialogue’ and ‘improving safety’.

MAGEE: said that recently police had run a forum on safety and it had covered events on public land and ‘talked about strategies within Glen Eira’. They revealed that the ‘police will only inform the community to a certain level’ and that ‘most of their methodology will not be discussed in public’. Number of police and the weapons they carry will ‘never be disclosed’. They said that they would be ‘happy’ to comment on any council event and to ‘give us advice’ as to how ‘they see security’ could be improved. But the ‘operational methodology of the Victoria Police stays within the Victoria Police’. Supported the report but thought that the advice they would get from the police would be about ratios of attendees to police and not operational. ‘What we don’t know is that second tier’ and what’s ‘standing off’ on the event. Report will ‘be good’ but ‘will be general’ and he ‘would be disappointed’ if the police did ‘give us detail’ about their operations.

LIPSHUTZ: agreed with Magee and since he didn’t think the ‘report is going to hurt’ he will support it. Thought it would make ‘good copy’ in the Leader. Said he can’t understand Delahunty saying she hates guns but votes against having ‘a high fence to protect kids at the Hadass School’ and wants operational matters disclosed so that for his ‘kids and families this is unacceptable too’.

LOBO: said that ‘security is important’ but ‘above all the communities have to integrate’ and if ‘communities work in a vacuum then this type of thing will happen’. Stated that the government protects everyone including Lipshutz, Hyams, Esakoff – ‘they have the best protection’ but ‘if you do these type of things people will target them more’. Stated that council shouldn’t be involved in security because ‘that is not our business’ and didn’t need to be ‘discussed with the police at all’. ‘I could have had a gun because I was called a terrorist in 2010’ (Note: this comment undoubtedly refers to an email by Lipshutz to Lobo asking if the bank that Lobo claims to have worked for in the Middle East was responsible for channelling funds to terrorist organisations). ‘I don’t have one so you don’t have to be worried’.

HYAMS: said that it ‘sounds uncomfortably like’ because the Jewish community ‘protects itself it is asking to be attacked’. He found Lobo’s comments ‘extremely disturbing’ and like ‘comments that have been made all through history by people with very bad character’. He ‘urged’ Lobo to ‘clarify what he meant by that’.

LOBO: said that ‘if you focus on yourself’ and that ‘you are the only one’ then ‘you are drawing attraction to others’.

HYAMS: ‘that comment shows such a lack of understanding’ of history that ‘it blows my mind’. Said that the ‘only reason’ that Jews are a ‘greater target’ than other groups is ‘because it draws attention to itself’. Wanted to know ‘what sort of a country are we living in’ when an ‘elected councillors’ can say ‘the reason you’re attacked is your fault’? ‘There are thousands of years of anti-semitism’ and the ‘Jewish community doesn’t ask’ for ‘what happens’ and they attempt to ‘protect themselves against what happens to it’. ‘That is probably the most disgusting thing I’ve ever heard said in a council chamber’. Asked Pilling to ask Lobo to ‘withdraw’.

Pilling asked Lobo to ‘withdraw the last comment you made’.

LOBO: ‘I would be happy to retract’ but said that his point was ‘we should not isolate ourselves’.

Pilling asked Lobo again to retract his comment.

LOBO: ‘okay, I retract’.

Pilling asked Esakoff if she wanted to speak and she replied ‘no’.

SOUNNESS: said he supported the motion and ‘looked forward to a productive conversation’. About ‘bringing our community together’. Important to remember that ‘we are sharing our community together’ and ‘we should be enjoying the richness that all of us bring to the table’. Even thought the report ‘doesn’t say that’ thought that ‘we should be looking to how we can be united’.

PILLING: supported the motion. Didn’t think that ‘much’ would come out of it but ‘information’ is always good. Said that some of the comments made ‘are unnecessary’ and he warned Lobo that he will ‘call’ him if ‘you step out of line’ and ‘won’t give you the benefit of the doubt’ which ‘I have tonight’. ‘We are a good council and we should all work together’.

LOBO started to speak but Pilling stopped him.

DELAHUNTY: said that the motion was about a public forum and that she wasn’t asking ‘for operational details’. Said she found it insulting that some people’s ‘families’ should be more safer than ‘other people’s families’ Arguing that ‘nothing much will come’ of the report is ‘disheartening’ but this is only a request for a forum. Said she ‘isn’t asking for information from police’ just that they ‘show up’. And if they don’t show up then ‘that’s something we need to talk about as well’ because sections of the community for ‘one reason or another’ ‘feel that they are at greater risk than others’. Said she enjoys ‘a great life in Glen Eira’ and doesn’t feel unsafe. She isn’t touched by domestic violence but others are and ‘we discussed this around this table’ and they discussed ‘wearing white ribbons’ so now they are discussing people ‘feeling unsafe particularly because of their religious’ affiliations. It’s a ‘call for a report’ and not a ‘call for some really insulting comments’ to be made. ‘What an absolute disappointment that little discussion was’. Lipshutz ‘talks about living in the real world’. Said that ‘I live in the real world too’ and in ‘this real world I sought election so that I could change things’ and ‘this is one of the things I want to change’. So ‘we shouldn’t just be passing reports because it doesn’t hurt’ but to ‘do something’ and if ‘you can’t do something then get off the chair and let someone else have a go’. ‘This is absolutely ridiculous’.

MOTION PUT AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY

 

December 16, 2015

Round 1 – Delahunty V Hyams

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

PS – ANNOUNCEMENT OF NEW CEO

mck

AUDIT COMMITTEE REPORT

DELAHUNTY: whilst reporting on this meeting, Delahunty referred to Item 8 of the minutes which stated – “The Committee noted the paper on changes to Council’s risk profile.”. Said ‘we had a paper presented’ and that she wanted the mover and seconder of the motion to accept the minutes of the advisory committees to ‘amend their resolutions’ in the minutes so that the ‘paper’ would be incorporated into these council minutes. This amendment was not accepted by Hyams and Lipshutz. Sounness seconded Delahunty’s amendment.

DELAHUNTY: asked Newton to confirm whether the paper presented to the Audit Committee was written by himself and whether he considers it to be confidential. Newton stated that he did write it and was confidential. Delahunty went on and said that she thought the paper would be available under FOI and that she thought it was ‘important’ for people to see ‘items such as this and how they reflect on the risk profile’ of the organisation. Said that council takes its ‘risk profile very seriously’. Said that the paper is about the changes to the risk profile ‘of the organisation as a whole’. Believed that ‘it is an important paper for the public to have access to’ and that ‘it would go some way’ to help people understand ‘some of the media reports’ of recent times. Asked councillors to find ‘in their hearts the transparency’ that is important and to release the paper because ‘the public is intelligent enough’ to ‘have a conversation about risk management’.

SOUNNESS: said he had attended the meeting and thought the paper was ‘factually important’ and highlights ‘the risks looked at by council’ and without specifying anything that he might feel ‘uncomfortable’ about some of ‘what those risks might be’.

HYAMS: thought that Delahunty’s implication that councillors didn’t want the item put into the ‘public’ domain was because councillors didn’t think residents were ‘intelligent’ enough and there were ‘lots of other reasons’.

DELAHUNTY: raised a point of order and stated ‘that’s not what I said’

HYAMS: ‘that’s exactly what you said’.

Pilling then asked Delahunty on ‘what point of order’ and she replied ‘on misrepresention’. Pilling fumbled and mumbled and asked Delahunty to ‘clarify’. Delahunty said that she said that she thought that residents were ‘intelligent enough’ and ‘did not infer’ that council thought otherwise.

HYAMS: stated that ‘Delahunty’s comments speak for themselves’. Continued that ‘there are plenty of other reasons’ why you might want to keep something confidential’. The Local Government Act has 9 such sections and so do other branches of government. Found it extraodinary that Delahunty could want the ‘underbelly’ of Council published and he was ‘sure’ that if the Audit Committee wanted it published they would have provided for this. Said he was ‘quite disappointed’ with the motion.

Delahunty then asked Newton that she thought it was Lipshutz who had asked for the ‘insurance map’ to ‘be released’ to full Council. Said that this was just ‘another example of Audit papers that come before council’.

LIPSHUTZ: said that he is being ‘misrepresented’ and that he didn’t ask for this.

DELAHUNTY: apologised and said that she thought ‘it might have been’ Lipshutz and that it could have been someone else. But it is ‘still another example of audit papers’ released.

NEWTON: confirmed that something like this had been ‘suggested’. Said that there are papers that go to councillors and vice versa.

LOBO: claimed that the ‘basic responsibility’ of a councillor is to ‘heighten the awareness of residents of risk’. Said in this instant if the ‘servant is serving his master’ then it is the servant’s ‘responsibility to tell where the risk lies’ and ‘why we hiding all the time’ and that people’s ‘perception is that we are not trustworthy’. Thought it was ‘time to break’ this perception and ‘start a new year 2016’.

AMENDMENT PUT TO THE VOTE – VOTING FOR – DELAHUNTY, SOUNNESS, LOBO

AGAINST – HYAMS, LIPSHUTZ, ESKAOFF, PILLING, OKOTEL, MAGEE

Original motion then put and speakers asked for.

LOBO: said that CEO is retiring and that there is ‘normally a procedure’ for an exit interview with a ceo ‘who has served more than a decade’. With Newton leaving ‘he could tell us what we do not know’ so ‘that’s another risk we may have’.

LIPSHUTZ: sprang up on a point of order.

DELAHUNTY: asked Pilling to determine the ‘grounds’ of Lipshutz’ point of order.

LIPSHUTZ: said that Lobo was ‘talking about what should happen’ and not ‘what did happen’.

DELAHUNTY: claimed that if this was about ‘relevance’ then the issue was ‘considered at number ten of the Audit Committee’.

PILLING then ‘over-ruled’ Lipshutz and said that the issue was raised at the audit committee.

LOBO: said that he was ‘used to rubbishing’.

LIPSHUTZ – another point of order and Pilling asked him to ‘speak to the issue at hand’.

LOBO: said he was speaking to the issue because ‘my masters are here’ (ie gallery). Said that they had ‘left’ the exit interview to the ‘discretion of the CEO’ and he ‘may or may not have accepted’ but ‘it is his responsibility to let us know why he resigned on the 20th October – a very good date’.

PILLING: said that it ‘is true’ that Lobo raised this at the audit committee meeting. The ‘offer was made’ to Newton and it ‘was declined’ and ‘that is the end of the story’. Said that it was ‘not mandatory’.

Motion put and carried. Voting against – Lobo, Sounness, Delahunty.

Voting for – Lipshutz, Hyams, Esakoff, Okotel, Pilling, Magee

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »