GE Council Meeting(s)

Archived Posts from this Category

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 21^st 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 20^th 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 20^th 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 20^th) 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 20^th 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

December 15, 2015

What A Sick Lot!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
1 Comment

Just a very brief report on tonight’s council meeting. Full details in the days ahead. However, tonight’s events distinguished themselves by disclosing to a good sized gallery how governance and unity do not exist in Glen Eira. The animosity in chamber was palpable.

The lowlights –

insult after insult hurled across the chamber between various councillors – Lobo, Magee, Lipshutz, Hyams the main culprits
open government again the loser to the gang of six (Magee an enthusiastic joiner)
inconsistency in argument on vivid display once more
public questions basically fobbed off with non answers

On planning applications the results were –

9 storey for Centre Road – unanimous refusal
Bent Street – permit (Lobo voting against)
Centre Road 5 storey and 63 units – permit
Murrumbeena 4 double storeys – permit
Nicholson Street Bentleigh – permit

Watch this space for our reports on what happened!

December 14, 2015

Oh What A Tangled Web We Weave When We First Practice To Deceive?

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

Apologies to the author for our misquoting this line in our heading. However here is a very carefully worded council Media Release designed no doubt to deflect recent public criticism of the Lipshutz/Hyams’ sponsored ‘guns in parks’ fiasco. Yet, it is the wording itself which only succeeds in raising numerous questions –

The media release refers to ‘current’ and ‘future’ events. What of PAST events – ie the Shabbat Project and (possibly) Chanukah in the Park?
The media release speaks of ‘administration’ of the Firearms Act? Surely ‘administration’ of an Act is distinct from seeking permission for licences? So the question becomes – did council seek permission from the ‘commissioner’, ‘police’ or anybody else with authority?

PS – SOME LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

December 14, 2015

Agenda Items – #2

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

Item 9.2 – Centre Road/Browns Road, Bentleigh East.

Application is for a part 3 and part 5 storeys building and 67 dwellings. Officer recommendation is ‘up to 63 dwellings’. Of the 67 proposed dwellings 60 are to be single bedroom apartments, 6 double bedroom apartments and one 3 bedroom apartment. Officer recommendation is to ‘amalgamate’ some of these so that another 3 two bedroom apartments are created and one additional 3 bedroom apartment in the revised dwelling numbers of 63 units.

Whilst this represents an interesting new position in that this is the first time we remember an officer’s report commenting specifically on the issue of ‘diversity’ and imposing conditions that will only marginally increase the number of 2 and 3 bedroom apartments, we remind readers of the following comments made by our wonderful councillors in previous decisions. Once again the question of consistency and arguably integrity (depending on who the applicant is) raises its ugly head.

HYAMS on the MRC Amended Plan for Caulfield Village where 3 bedroom apartments were gutted to create more single bedroom units so that just on 61% of the proposed 463 dwellings got the nod to be single bedroom dog boxes – “‘I don’t know that there needs to be that diversity in every site – there needs to be diversity across Glen Eira’. . So even though there will be many one and two bedroom places there are ‘family sites around the area’ so that’s the diversity.

PILLING (on same item) – On profit council has to look at the ‘planning process’. 26 3 bedroom places ‘are a plus’ but’ not for us to determine’. Said that council ‘can encourage but we can’t actually have that law’. And this also applies to ‘social housing’. This will ‘happen’ at some point and ‘it’s up to the developer to provide it’ even though council might like it in ‘every part of the development’. Just because council doesn’t ‘like’ it isn’t enough reason to vote against. Council has to make its decisions on ‘good planning’ processes such as the planning scheme, incorporated plan and development plan.

OKOTEL (same item) – was ‘concerned’ about the reduction of three bedroom apartments but she accepts that these could ‘be difficult to sell’ and ‘nobody wants to see vacant dwellings’ especially when ‘there is such a need for housing’. ‘It’s better that apartments are built and purchased’.

The above quotes speak for themselves!

December 9, 2015

Secrecy & More Secrecy!

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

The recent outcry against the secret vote for ‘guns in parks’ highlighted once again how Glen Eira continues to operate behind a veil of secrecy and abuse of the legislation. In 2011 we featured a post which itemised the number of decisions made in camera and the number of decisions which were subsequently reported in the minutes (See: https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2011/12/17/a-record-to-be-proud-of/

Not too much has changed since. Countless items that feature in the agenda papers for in camera decision making are not reported in the subsequent minutes and what is even worse, there is no explanation as to why only some items include the number of applicants for the tender, the criteria, and most importantly the estimated cost. Countless others simply describe the vague nature of the tender and that’s it!

But the most damning indictment of all is that an examination of the minutes proves once and for all how decisions are made behind closed doors and away from public scrutiny. On the 8^th April, 2014 the following tender appeared in the in camera agenda items –

under s89 (2)(d) “contractual” which relates to the awarding of a contract for refurbishment of the Caulfield Park Conservatory Number of tenders received 8; Number of evaluation criteria tenders

assessed against 3

Estimated contract value $250,000

No outcome for this item was recorded. Yet at the very next Council Meeting (29^th April, 2014) there is the extraordinary report and subsequent vote to demolish the conservatory – despite 2 rounds of public consultation and 2 previous resolutions that demanded it be maintained and restored. So what happened on the 8^th April that caused this change of heart? What did it cost to produce and advertise the tender documents? Or is it the case that behind closed doors on the 8^th April it was decided to scuttle the debate and the subsequent meeting was merely to ‘ratify’ an already made decision? Even if we are wrong here, it does not say much for council and councillors when public money is wasted on tendering and within three weeks this all comes to nought!

Things get even worse with the following –

12.1 under s89 (2)(d) “contractual” which relates to awarding of the contract for Tender 2015.049 Booran Reserve Construction of New Playground and Associated Works (21^st July 2015)

Nothing was forthcoming. Hence residents had no idea – (1) if a contract was awarded (2) what was the price and (3) exactly what does ‘associated works’ really mean.

There are other gems too which illustrate the nastiness and internal bickering that has been part of Glen Eira ever since Newton set foot in the place. Here are some examples – again not disclosed and we can only wonder how much more of ratepayer funds went into lawyers’ pockets without disclosing the amounts –

Crs Lipshutz/Esakoff

That the meeting be now closed to members of the public under Section 89(2) of the Local Government Act 1989 in order to consider:

12.2 under s89 (2)(a) “personnel” and s89 (2)(d) “contractual” which relates to compliance with the Local Government Act.

The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously. (9^th April, 2013)

Crs Hyams/Lipshutz

That the meeting be now closed to members of the public under Section 89(2) of the Local Government Act 1989 in order to consider:

An item of Urgent Business under s89(2)(a) personnel and 89(2)(f) legal advice which relates to a personnel matter. (6^th November 2013)

Crs Lipshutz/Magee

That the meeting be now closed to members of the public under Section 89(2) of the Local Government Act 1989 in order to consider:

12.3 Under s89(2)(d) contractual, which relates to the contract for Community Energy Efficiency Program.

12.2 Under s89(2)(d) contractual, which relates to the GESAC construction contract dispute resolution.

The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously.(11^th June 2013)

The results of the following items were not disclosed in the minutes –

under s89 (2)(d) “contractual” which relates to the awarding of the contract for the provision of legal services.

Number of tenders received 5

Number of evaluation criteria tenders assessed against 5

12.4 under s89(2)(d) “contractual” which relates to completed capital works approved by Council

under s89 (2)(d) “contractual” which relates to the contract for the Duncan Mackinnon Pavilion (17^th December 2013)

which relates to the contract for internal audit services

under s89 (2)(d) “contractual” which relates to the appointment of prequalified supplier panel for the procurement of trucks

under s89 (2)(d) “contractual” which relates to the awarding of the contract for processing of organic waste

12.4 under s89 (2)(a) “personnel” which relates to the appointment of Community representatives to the Citizen of the Year Awards Committee

But the one we love the best is the ubiquitous nonsense of – under s89 (2)(d) “contractual” which relates to a contractual matter.

12.4 under s89 (2)(f) ‘legal advice” which relates to the Code of Conduct.

12.1 under s89 (2)(a) “personnel” which relates to Council’s Audit Committee (4^th February 2014)

12.3 under s89 (2)(d) “contractual” which relates to insurance

12.3 under s89 (2) (f) “legal advice” which relates to “Code of Conduct – Possible Additions” (july 22^nd 2014)

12.2 under (f) “legal advice” which relates to the Code of Conduct. (18^th March 2014)

12.5 under s89(2)(e) “proposed developments” which relates to additional open space.

under s89 (2)(d) “contractual” which relates to the contract for Tender 2014.043 Provision of Wide Area Network (Wan) Infrastructure

12.5 Under section S89 (2)(e) “proposed developments” Open Space Strategy – gap areas. This report does not recommend any acquisition of any housing. (5^th September 2015)

12.1 under s89 (2)(d) “contractual” which relates to awarding of the contract for Tender 2015.049 Booran Reserve Construction of New Playground and Associated Works 21^st july 2015

12.2 under s89 (2)(d) “contractual” which relates the appointment of a contractor for the supply of fuel for Council’s vehicle fleet.

12.2 under s89 (2)(d) “contractual” which relates to disposal of general household waste

12.0 under s89(2)(a) “personnel”, minutes of Community Consultation Advisory Committee meeting of 19 February 2015 relating to nominations received for Community Representatives on the Committee

Thus it goes on an on. Why on earth residents can’t be told who is the contractor for disposal of general household waste’ or who will be the supplier for fuel and how much this will cost, is literally beyond us. Why the secrecy? Or is it all designed to make it that much more difficult to follow the money trail and to see who is getting what?

We should also be prepared for the fact that when the new Code of Conduct comes out post election that there will be the attempt no doubt to gag councillors even more. You don’t spend thousands upon thousands on lawyers and then maintain the status quo! And please remember that the legislation does not MANDATE in camera decision making. It merely suggests that councils ‘MAY’ decide to deem certain items confidential. In Glen Eira this has come to mean practically everything whilst other councils are prepared to publish their decision making on commercial tenders Glen Eira doesn’t. Whilst other councils are prepared to publish their ceo performance assessments, Glen Eira doesn’t. And whilst other councils are far more specific in their descriptions of confidential items Glen Eira is content to say again and again – under s89 (2)(d) “contractual” which relates to a contractual matter. That is double speak at its absolute best and indicative of a council who pays no credence to their obligations of transparency and accountability.

December 8, 2015

Guns In Parks?

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

PS – AND HERE’S PILLING’S EFFORT WITH NEIL MITCHELL -http://www.3aw.com.au/news/glen-eira-mayor-refuses-to-answer-sensational-gun-claims-20151208-gli2e4.html

Delahunty’s interview on yesterday’s Neil Mitchell program –

https://audioboom.com/boos/3912931-glen-eira-councillor-mary-delahunty-with-neil-mitchell

Our following comments are directed to the processes that surround the in camera Special Council Meeting of 20^th October 2015.

Council’s Local Law categorically states that ‘urgent business’ will only be entertained under Section 225(1) –if a matter of an urgent nature has arisen since circulation of the notice paper and the Council resolves to consider the matter as urgent business

How can something be considered as ‘urgent business’ when –

The records of assembly for the 6^th October contain the following – Cr Lipshutz – letter to Cr Hyams from the Jewish Community Security Group. With the Shabbat Project approaching Council needs to deal with the issues raised in the letter AND
From the records of assembly for the 13^th October – Agenda Item 10 – Urgent Business – Cr Lipshutz, Security at community events.

The Shabbat Project is an annual event. It is not something that crops up at the last minute. We also don’t know the date of the letter to Hyams and why it should come not from the official organisers, but the ‘security group’. If the matter was really that urgent then legislation provides the means for a Special Council Meeting to be called at any time – either by the Mayor alone or with the signatures of 3 councillors.

The whole process appears to be continually mired in controversy and is fast becoming a divisive item. Here is an extract from the Minutes of September 23^rd, 2014. Poor process and lack of good governance are evident – ie ‘the rescinding of a ‘council decision’ via email – when no such decision is recorded in any of council’s minutes as far as we know!

URGENT BUSINESS

Crs Lipshutz/Hyams

That a matter of the Shabbat Project be regarded as an item of Urgent Business.

The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously.

(a) Crs Lipshutz/Hyams

That Council rescind its decision contained in the email to Mr Tom Winter on 19 September 2014.
That subject to any prior bookings that Council hire the meeting room at the Caulfield Park Pavillion to the organisers of the Shabbat Project (the organisers) for the 25 October 2014 (the date) on Council’s usual terms and conditions and grant a permit to the organisers for the use of Caulfield Park on the date for the purposes set out in their application including a permit for the use of fireworks subject to Council’s usual terms and conditions including but not limited to:

(i) Compliance with all safety requirements in relation to the use of fireworks;

(ii) There being no interference or damage to the cricket pitch area; and

(iii) There being no interference with the use of the ovals for sport on the date and the following day.

DIVISION

Cr Sounness called for a DIVISION on the voting of the MOTION

FOR AGAINST

Cr Lipshutz Cr Delahunty

Cr Hyams Cr Sounness

Cr Okotel Cr Magee

Cr Pilling Cr Lobo

The MOTION was put and CARRIED on the Casting Vote of the Chairperson.

The Shabbat Project mentioned in the first record of assembly for 2015 featured numerous events in Melbourne (October 22^nd).The Age also ran a story including this paragraph – In Melbourne, meanwhile, Jews of all ages and from all denominations were united in the spirit of the occasion, with more than 2400 people baking challah and attending the havdalah concert at Caulfield Park, and hundreds attending dinners, lunches, shul services, picnics, talks and everything in between.

Thus the question remains whether Council’s secret resolution was to provide ‘security’ for the Shabbat Program alone, or to ensure that Chanukah in the Park was able to switch from Caulfield Park to the racecourse once fears arose it might be cancelled altogether.

Further complicating matters is this Age report from November 23^rd 2015 reporting on the ‘cancellation’ of Chanukah in the Park (See: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/security-risks-prompt-cancellation-of-jewish-event-chanukah-in-the-park-20151123-gl5po9.html). Of interest in this article are the views of several prominent Jewish Leaders who claimed that the event should still have occurred at Caulfield Park and that security was not a problem. The Leader (December 1^st issue) claims that the event at Caulfield Park was cancelled on November 25^th and once again it is claimed that the event could have gone on as originally intended. Whatever the ‘official’ date for ‘cancellation’ it is clear that ‘security’ was well and truly on the minds of Lipshutz and Hyams from early October. Whether this was strictly for the Shabbat Project events or intended to carry over to Chanukah in the Park is anyone’s guess.

In a ‘memorandum’ dated the 15^th October Magee called for a Special Council Meeting. An Age advertisement appeared on the 16^th October. That makes it 4 days prior to the actual Special Council meeting. The legislation (Section 89(4) requires 7 days notice. If notice is any shorter then the legislation also requires that Council MUST – specify the urgent or extraordinary circumstances which prevented the Council from complying with subsection (4) in the minutes. This has not been done.

We could also question whether the reasons given to conduct the meeting in secret are valid (ie security of land, etc) since the clauses quoted are only applicable to council meetings and Special Committee Meetings. There is nothing in the cited legislation which provides Special Council Meetings to be closed to the public!

Thus we get to the Special Council Meeting of 20^th October and the highly questionable reasons for excluding the public. We quote –

“matters affecting the security of Council property” AND “any other matter which the Council or special committee considers would prejudice the Council or any person”.

The final phrase of the motion is important – which relates to the provision of security services for events on Council property.

If the switch to the racecourse was the objective, then we maintain that the above justifying clauses are entirely spurious since –

The Racecourse is NOT ‘COUNCIL PROPERTY’
What ‘prejudice’ to council or ‘any person’ could exist? And what does this even mean?
Did the Trustee’s who have responsibility for the Reserve give their permission?
Did any ‘negotiations’ take place with the MRC?
And who has the final authority to allow the carrying of firearms by anyone?
Who grants permits for the carrying of firearms?
What are the implications for long term = does this mean that at every Ajax footy or cricket game residents can expect guards with firearms?
And what if Ajax is playing ‘away’ – since the clause specifies ‘council property’, or
Was this all designed only for Chanukah in the Park, or for the Shabbat Project and what of the future?

And of course, there is the perennial question of WHO LEAKED to the Leader? Only officers and councillors would have been present at this secret tete-a-tete. Will the Leader journalist now be hauled off to court in the attempt to reveal his source as happened years ago with Matthew Dunkley? Hasn’t this Council learnt anything? – that secrecy only breeds suspicion and distrust.

Yes, Glen Eira Council is definitely one happy bunch of campers where so much is done behind closed doors. Countless questions remain as to what really goes on behind these closed doors and how the ‘victim’ is always transparency and good governance.

December 1, 2015

Ratepayers: The Developers’ Charity Fund?

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

PS: a new application has just gone in for a 7 storey, 24 dwellings in Centre Road, Bentleigh. A few doors away from the 9 storey application on the old Broadbent’s site. Because they can – THEY WILL as long as the planning scheme is without direction, without clear policy, and without any review!

Adding more insult to injury, it appears that ratepayers are now footing the bill to fix up the mess that developers leave as a result of their constructions. In response to a public question asked at last council meeting on who is paying for road reconstruction at 2 Morton Avenue, Carnegie, the response was:

In recent years, property development in the street has resulted in various utilities
excavating the road pavement to access underground services. On each occasion,
the utilities repaired the road, most likely at the developers cost to Council
standards. The end result of all this work, however, was a patchwork of repairs. In
addition to the repairs, sections of the road pavement had begun to fail due to
general wear and tear. To address the patchwork of repairs and to remedy the
failed sections of pavement, Council recently removed the road surface in the
affected area and applied a uniform patch. These final works were undertaken by Council’s Asphalt Crew at Council’s cost.

++++++++

Speaking of cost, here is another example of how to waste money defending the indefensible. Councillors responded to Wynne’s kick up the backside letter by ordering more ‘investigations’ into VCAT decisions. How many hours of officer’s time will be devoted to this? How much will this little exercise in futility cost? And why can’t this time be spent in drawing up worthwhile amendments to the planning scheme so that VCAT has some real guidance on planning applications? Thus, more ratepayer funds wasted on maintaining the illusion that all blame can be laid a the door of VCAT instead of council’s planning failures.

« Previous Page — Next Page »

Glen Eira Debates