GE Council Meeting(s)

Archived Posts from this Category

May 18, 2012

Keeping The Bastards Honest!

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

Despite all the protestations that no-one at Council follows Glen Eira Debates it is amazing how often our posts have engendered some kind of verbal ‘feedback’ to our criticisms in actual council meetings. Words have also, at times, given way to real action. The latest example features in the agenda items for next Tuesday night.

We recently pointed out how the ‘measures’ included in the Council Plan for the past 4 years have NEVER been implemented as required. Whilst the measures promised to report on the NUMBERS of permits granted for Minimal Change and Housing Diversity Areas, this was never done. Instead there was the wonderful waffle of vague percentages. Well, we are very pleased to report that for the very first time that we are aware of, the Quarterly Report in relation to this objective actually does what is supposed to be done ie. “247 dwellings approved in minimal change area and 628 in housing diversity to the end of March (figures updated quarterly)”. This stands in contrast to the nonsense that was previously stated – ie. ‘75% of dwellings approved occurred in housing diversity area’. For this belated ‘improvement’, we unashamedly take some credit.

We haven’t been all that successful when it comes to delegations. The same old ceding of power to unelected officials continues unabated. We simply repeat here something that we wrote a year ago –

“We ask readers to consider the following comparisons between Glen Eira and other councils in order to assess how little control our elected representatives have over planning in this municipality and how little decision making by officers is accessible, transparent and accountable to the community.

For instance:

  1. Kingston, Darebin,   Moreland, Frankston, Banyule, Cardinia (amongst others) do not simply have  a ‘delegated planning committee’ (DPC) – they have decreed that such  committees are constituted as ‘Special Committees’. This means that      agendas are published, meeting schedules are published, minutes are published, residents officially address committees (some allow 5 mins), and most importantly the committees consist of councillors – all chaired by the Mayor. The role of officers is simply to present and/or provide  ‘advice’. This is a far cry from the manner in which DPC’s operate in Glen      Eira
  2. Many councils provide monthly reports to full council meetings where information is provided on: how many applications; how many permits granted by officers, DPC’s; how many refused by the various officers, etc. In Glen Eira, the only report      which is published is that which documents applications before VCAT. We   doubt if councillors, and certainly not the public, have any idea as to  the breakdown of applications and their acceptance or refusal.

There are many other differences as well –

  • ‘Councillor call in’ – where a single councillor has the power to ‘call in’ any application for decision at a full council meeting (Port Phillip; Cardinia; Bayside; Kingston; Banyule; Casey; Frankston to name but a few!)
  • Number of objections clearly specified as the trigger for panel or full council determination (often 5, some 10 – In Glen Eira we find the phrase ‘significant number’!)
  • Height levels that determine whether applications go to DCP, Council or officers. In Glen Eira two storey to be determined by officers alone)
  • Parking restrictions – ie. if a development intends to waive parking restrictions whether or not this should go to council or DCP (Port Phillip).”

Nothing like this of course, happens in Glen Eira

Item 9.1: GESAC

This report bears Newton’s name. We simply marvel at the sheer audacity of the following sentence and what it could possibly imply about the intelligence of residents?

“Government grants constituted 35% of the construction contract. Glen Eira ratepayers enjoy 100% of the facility after contributing 65% of the cost.”

Surely the ‘cost’ must include $2.5 million per year in interest for the next 10 or 15 years, plus running and maintainence costs; plus staff costs; plus insurance costs; plus setting up costs; plus lost income costs; plus tendering costs; plus more car park costs; plus road changes, traffic light installation costs; plus power supply costs. At a rough estimate just on interest alone the alleged $45-47 million project balloons out to between $70 – 80 million dollars. Does this then equal ‘65% of the cost’ or are residents just being fed more and more spin?

 

PS: CORRECTION. We’ve double checked the Quarterly Reports and despite the long standing requirement to report NUMBERS for dwellings in Minimal Change/Housing Diversity this did not happen until the Quarterly Report of November, 2011.

 

May 3, 2012

More Mulch

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

Item 9.5 Leaf and Chipped Garden Waste

Penhalluriack left the room. Lipshutz moved and Magee seconded motion.

LIPSHUTZ: stated that this has been a ‘vexed issue for some time now’ and been dealt with by the Ombudsman. Said that Penhalluriack had raised the issue of legionella disease and potential risk to workers. Said that ‘we have a proper’ report that recommends ‘some safeguards which will protect’ users. Claimed that what the Arnold report does say is that ‘bacteria’ is ‘found in all sorts of’ gardens and waste. Went on to say that he personally was ‘not aware of any person contracting Legionnaires disease by using our mulch facility’. In these ‘circumstances it is appropriate’ to reopen the facility with the ‘safeguards as outlined’.

MAGEE: Said that last year he had no ‘hesitation’ in voting to close the facility because ‘there was a potential risk to members of our community’. But now after reading a lot more and ‘given the 6 recommendations’ by the Arnold report it was okay. Noted that there was also a letter from Arnold that came in April. Read from the letter where it was claimed that they tested ‘both the air and the mulch’ and that ‘legionella was not detected’. ‘I’m more than comfortable with that paragraph’ and together with the recommendations was happy to ‘reverse the decision I made’. Was now ‘confident’ that there isn’t any risk.

LOBO:  began by referring to what he had said at last council meeting about the Ombudsman’s title to his report and that he was ‘misquoted by the local Glen Eira Debates’ blog. Reiterated that the title is ‘not a good reflection’ on councillors when it says that governance ‘involves each and every one of us’. Defined governance in terms of ‘processes’ and ‘procedures’ and ‘accountable’. Said that he believed that ‘as councillors we have done what we could’ so therefore the ombudsman’s title should have simply said ‘poor governance…..by a councillor’… ‘it should not be a reflection’ on others. Went on to say that as soon as councillors were aware following the O’Neill report they sent Penhalluriack off to a Code of Conduct Panel. ‘Painting everyone with the same brush was not appropriate’ and all this does is ‘show the over enthusiasm of the ombudsman’.  Said that when he last raised the issue ‘I was criticised by Glen Eira Debates….(claimed not to be reading it) ‘regularly but I do go on it once a month’. There was the need for Glen Eira Debates to ‘be careful in information….particularly those (that write under) cover (of anonymity)….’they should be courageous enough to say who they are’ so that councillors could reply. Went on to say that when he ‘had the guts’ to show up at a recent community forum one ‘over enthusiastic resident’ attacked councillors who were ‘painted as useless’ and that the ‘community should get rid of all the councillors’….’ I don’t understand all this garbage’ and that Glen Eira Debates should think about the positive things that council is doing and not be ‘negative’.

ESAKOFF:  Agreed with Magee that the recommendations were ‘competent’ and that ‘there will be no issue in the area’ and that there will be ‘more than a few residents’ who will be pleased with the reopening.

HYAMS:  Said that the ‘first part’ of the motion is to note the ombudsman’s report ‘on these matters’. Agreed with Lobo’s comments that the title is ‘unfortunate and doesn’t reflect the contents of the report’ and also ‘endorsed’ Lobo’s comments on those ‘without the integrity to put their names to their criticisms’. They ‘hide behind anonymity’ and ‘cowardice’. The further letter from Noel Arnold ‘proves that contrary to much speculation’ the mulch was checked but that isn’t ‘an indication of whether the mulch facility causes a risk to health’ because there’s always ‘things in dirt’. Said that the ‘real test’ is checking the air and that was done. Officers ‘weren’t able to find’ any other location that was as good as Glen Huntly Park because of ‘the size of the car park’. Since the facility was closed there had been a lot of ‘feedback’ from people that it shouldn’t have been closed. Said that when he voted to close it his real concern was that ‘people may not handle it safely’, ‘but I guess there is only so much that you can do’ (so the recommendations and the debate would alert people. Also they might try and get it from other sites that don’t have these safety precautions).

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (5 councillors with Pilling, Tang & Forge absent).

 

May 1, 2012

Revisionism Or Hedging Your Bets?

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

Lipshutz got the ball rolling tonight with an incredible motion – to rewrite history and the official record. When Hyams called for confirmation of minutes Lipshutz moved that the minutes of 10th April be amended in relation to Penhalluriack’s questions and Lipshutz’s point of order inserted. He claimed that the questions were ‘a continuation of the bullying behaviour’ as ‘noted in the Ombudsman’s report”. Hyams asked for a seconder. There was a very long silence and in the end, Hyams seconded the motion himself.

LIPSHUTZ: Said that Penhalluriack asked a ‘series of questions’ and on the 5th question he raised a point of order. Stated again that the point of order was upheld by Hyams and ‘therefore the minutes do not properly reflect that’.

HYAMS: agreed  that what’s there currently is ‘more commentary’ than an account of ‘what actually happened at the meeting’. Said that his ‘recollection’ of the events was about the three points of order that Lipshutz raised and that he ruled in favour of them.

PENHALLURIACK: “I asked a series of questions……(he paused after the first one and got Hyams permission to continue)….’those questions are vital…..(since councillors will be voting on re-opening the mulch facility)……’that is council’s right’….’but the minutes are inaccurate because they don’t record the fact that I had asked 4 questions’ (and we didn’t get notice of Lipshutz’s motion in assembly)….’the four questions should have been put on the record…they should be answered by the CEO (or relevant officer)…..Cr Lipshutz is famous for….leaping to his feet to stop me from speaking….(he should have done this with the first question but he didn’t)…(same for 2nd, 3rd, and 4th question)…..’during the 5th….he suddenly woke up…..or (decided to) stop me at that point’….(Said that Hyams pointed out that Glen Eira’s meeting procedures in the Local Law) ‘protect you from my motion of dissent’….’so even though there may have been a majority of councillors who didn’t like what you were doing….you weren’t prepared to put it to the vote’….(which democratic institutions) ‘love doing’….(You said) ‘I rule, I am the Mayor’ …(the Mayor of) ‘toss of the coin’….’I will not listen to your motion of dissent and I will not consult with fellow councillors’….’that defies logic that a point of order can go backwards’ (and delete earlier questions)….’each of my questions covered different matters’…

Hyams interrupted saying that Penhalluriack’s 3 minutes were up. A vote to extend time was taken and passed unanimously.

PENHALLURIACK: ‘we have the tape recording of the meeting’ (so can confirm what) “I’m saying is correct’…’there was silence…..until the 5th question….(Told councillors to refer to the minutes of the assembly of 10th April where it says ‘Councillor questions’ and quoted that Penhalluriack advised he had a ‘list of questions’)….’not a question….a list of questions’….’I am now demanding that this council supports me in getting those questions answered’….’councillors deserve explicit answers before they embark’ (on decisions on the agenda tonight).

HYAMS: said he wanted to ask Burke a ‘couple of questions’.

‘Is there anything in our Local Law at all that would have allowed me to do that?’ (ie put the dissent motion to a vote). Burke answered ‘No there’s not’. Next question was whether the Local Law permitted the Mayor to ‘decide all points of order?’. Burke stated that ‘the Local Law is quite clear….absolutely clear…’. Hyams then asked if Burke had heard him say ‘I am the Mayor and what I say goes’?..Burke said that he doesn’t have a ‘recollection’ of what Penhalluriack alleges Hyams said. Hyams then said that he ‘understands that you’ve listened to the tape of this discussion’….’does it reflect that all the questions were ruled out of order?’ Burke confirmed this.

LIPSHUTZ: asked Burke that when he moved the point of order whether he meant all questions?

BURKE: responded that the point of order ‘was in relation to all questions’.

PENHALLURIACK: said that in any meeting of ‘elected representatives’…..’is it possible to put anything to the vote?’

BURKE asked Penhalluriack to ‘be more specific’.

PENHALLURIACK: Agreed that the Local Law states that the Mayor can decide but ‘it does not say that the Mayor cannot democratically ask his councillors’ to vote….’that’s similar to when the Mayor has the casting vote….(and his obligation is to preserve the status quo)…’the law doesn’t say he must, tradition says he will’.

BURKE: stated that he’s only got the Local Law and that says that the Mayor is the final ‘arbiter’.

PENHALLURIACK: said that Burke is avoiding the question and asked whether ‘it was not possible for the Mayor to seek the advice’ of his councillors…..

BURKE: ‘…..ultimately (chairperson has to ensure that the)’business of council is done….in good order….(since there is the Local Law then it would be) ‘most unusual to move away from that’….there’s nothing to stop the Chairperson from doing that ( but he doesn’t have to).

PENAHLLURIACK: stated that he didn’t say that the chair ‘has to do that’…..

HYAMS: interrupted by asking if Penhalluriack was asking a question or making a statement.

PENHALLURIACK: Asked Burke that when he listened to the tapes whether he noticed a ‘pause’ between the series of questions

BURKE responded that he didn’t

PENHALLURIACK asked for a copy of the tape

BURKE: “I will need to consider that request Councillor’

PENHALLURIACK: Why?

BURKE: ‘That’s my answer Cr Penhalluriack’.

LOBO: Said that he didn’t come to the council meeting for the election of the Mayor because he ‘wasn’t well’…..(Penhalluriack shouldn’t have said that Hyams is a Mayor) ‘by toss of the coin…you have to respect the seat’.

PENHALLURIACK: asked permission to answer but Hyams said it wasn’t a question. Penhalluriack said his comments weren’t a  reflection on Lobo. Hyams then said that Penhalluriack is ‘allowed to speak if you feel you’ve been misrepresented’.

LIPSHUTZ: Claimed that his habit of ‘jumping up’ is ‘not true’….(he was concerned that Penhalluriack not continue with behaviour)…’that the ombudsman and the O’Neill report (condemend)….’I’m also concerned….that the questions be proper….’not just Penhalluriack….if any councillor, including myself embark on that course (then he’d want someone to raise a point of order)….(said that Penhalluriack’s claim about ‘no notice) ‘that’s not true either….(said that at the pre-meeting he gave a) ‘clear indication’….’that I may raise a point of order’….(said that Penhalluriack was trying to) ‘revive the same motion that he had’ (before)…’reality is….listened to the question to see how far….by the 5th question pretty clear ….the whole totality of those questions were the subject of my concern…’list of questions and they were dealt with as one….(point of order was upheld)’and the minutes should reflect that’….

MOTION PUT and CARRIED. Penhalluriack called for a division. FOR – Esakoff, Lipshutz, Lobo, Hyams. AGAINST: Magee, Penhalluriack

IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT FORGE AND TANG WERE APOLOGIES. PILLING WAS ABSENT AND NO APOLOGY TENDERED.

 

April 27, 2012

Move Over Sir Humphrey!

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

GESAC

We report that:

  • Once again no Pools Steering Committee report – even though this group are meant to meet every month and keep councillors informed as to progress
  • Of the 5 Records of Assembly (ranging over a month) GESAC is mentioned ONCE!
  • Council is still losing money hand over fist. The Financial Report lists revenue loss as now standing at $1.93 million due to the delay.
  • Also of significance is the nearly $4 million that capital works is behind schedule. Maybe the principle at work here is:  don’t spend what you promised to spend because that would drive the liquidity ratio well below the danger level of 1! Hang on to the money for as long as you can and use this to artificially boost the cash base.

RECORDS OF ASSEMBLY

5 records of assembly are provided. We have to again question the accuracy and/or selective nature of these ‘records’. Lipshutz does not rate a mention once – it’s like he doesn’t exist. Either he is not doing his job by raising issues, or those issues simply aren’t reported. We certainly do not believe that he sits in these meetings totally mute. That then raises the question of how slanted these various records of assembly are.

We’ve gone through these and noted the number of times that individual councillors get a mention (apart from the declarations of interest).  It’s therefore fascinating as to what is put in and what is left out and the bigger question of WHO DECIDES – especially when we’re told that the meeting adjourned and reassembled but only councillors are listed. Does this mean that officers departed? If they didn’t, then why aren’t they listed as present? If they did leave then who took the minutes? Was it an independent note-taker as recommended by the Municipal Inspector?

The individual councillor mentions are:

Penhalluriack – 17

Hyams – 7

Magee – 5

Lobo – 4

Forge – 7

Pilling 1

Tang 3

Esakoff was absent for all meetings; Pilling was absent for 1.

Readers are free to draw their own conclusions as to what this signifies. However, it should raise alarm bells as to the possible distortion(s) that these ‘records’ might represent.

C87

Overall recommendation is to go to a Planning Panel. However, the convoluted logic is worthy of highlighting. Apparently there were 59 submissions. Some favoured the Amendment, others opposed. What is important is that of these 59,

“27 submitters support the intent of the amendment but are “objecting” because their properties have not been included in the amendment”.

Since council did not INVITE comments from the community in preparing this amendment nor determining which areas are worthy of greater protection, they now turn around and argue – “This category of submissions request changes which go beyond the scope of this amendment in the form it was exhibited to the community. Any property that was not included as part of the exhibited amendment cannot now be included in this amendment.”

This somewhat patronising advice is then offered to those 27 submitters – “The suggested way forward for this category of submitters is to encourage them to put their views to the independent panel. The panel may, through their reported recommendations to Council, come to the view that some properties, not currently part of the amendment, are nonetheless worthy of NCO or DDO protection. It would then be open to Council to consider a new amendment process to include these properties.”

In other words, tough luck! We believe that the chances of the Panel investigating something outside their terms of reference is zero! Another Amendment must be devised, advertised, calls for submissions, Ministerial approval, etc. etc. As Hyams is so fond of saying, this could take years!

Our conclusion? Another tinkering with the edges of the planning scheme to deliver pre-determined outcomes that have deliberately excluded consideration of the majority of areas within Glen Eira. This is Sir Humphrey at his absolute best!

MULCH

Finally, there’s the recommendation to re-install the mulch facility exactly where it’s been – Glen Huntly. Residents are expected to believe that there is absolutely no other area within Glen Eira that could accommodate this facility and that relocation would probably cost $3 million!

We’ll comment on this in far greater detail in the days ahead.

 

April 10, 2012

Councillor Questions

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

Penhalluriack started asking a series of questions –

(1) Asked if the Noel Arnold (consultant’s report) actually tested the mulch itself and if it was done,  ‘to provide details’ of results and costs

(2) When was this done?

(3) Whether this work ‘was included in Noel Arnold Associate’s final report’. If it wasn’t included in their report then Penhalluriack wanted officers to explain why it wasn’t included.

(4) Quoted Newton as saying that the cost was $5000 and Penhalluriack asked whether this was the cost at the 5th April or whether there was additional work done ‘prior to the 5th April’ which wasn’t in the Newton report to council.

(5) Said that the original quote was ‘$2,000-$3000’ but wanted to know what the total ‘amount paid’ was.

At this point Lipshutz raised a ‘Point of Order’

LIPSHUTZ: ‘I suggest the question is improper’ (in breach of the Local Government Act and the ombudsman’s report about Penhalluriack and the mulch facility. Stated that Penhalluriack had tried to get this information via his FOI application which failed) ‘and is now seeking the same information’. Also didn’t like the ‘way the question is framed’ and its criticism of officers ‘that there is wrong doing on the part of officers’….’that once again is inappropriate conduct’.

HYAMS: ‘I am going to uphold that point of order’. Agreed that because of the ombudsman’s report and ‘our duty to uphold the provisions’ of LGA and Code of conduct….’we should be doing what we can to stop breaches of those’.

PENHALLURIACK: Stated that he wasn’t contradicting the officers, ‘what I am concerned about is that there has been additional testing done’ and if this testing shows that the mulch is infected ‘any councillor in this room’ wouldn’t vote to reinstate the mulch facility. ‘That’s why I’m asking these questions’. Started quoting an email from Noel Arnold & Associates which said they’d got samples from Bunnings and there would be ‘analysis’ and that the cost for this is ‘additional’ to original statement.

HYAMS: interrupted at this point. Said that the ombudsman’s report stated that Penhalluriack had a conflict of interest in mulch.

PENHALLURIACK: corrected Hyams by saying that the ombudsman said that he ‘may’ have a conflict of interest. Stated that he had legal advice on these questions and that he doesn’t believe he has a conflict of interest and it’s ‘for me to judge’ about asking these questions.

HYAMS: Claimed that the point of order was that the questions were ‘improper’. ‘In my opinion’ (given the ombdusman’s report and that Penhalluriack declared a conflict of interest at the last meeting)

PENHALLURIACK: claimed that he had left the room but did not declare a conflict of interest

HYAMS: Again said the ombudsman stated he had a conflict of interest

PENHALLURIACK: again corrected Hyams by repeating the ombudsman saying he ‘may have a conflict of interest’. Referred to the Municipal Inspector’s report which said that he doesn’t have a conflict of interest. ‘This is a very difficult area and I don’t believe it’s right that you sit in judgement of me…..taking the responsibility for the health and safety’ of residents and workers.

HYAMS: said that he ‘understands’ Penhalluriack’s ‘motivation’ but ‘integrity agency’ asks ‘why did you allow these continuous breaches’. Said that Penhalluriack’s beliefs about conflict of interest are matters ‘for your conscience’  but Hyams conscience is ‘how I react to what I see as breaches of the law’

PENHALLURIACK: offered Hyams to report him to a Councillor Conduct Panel ‘if you like to’ but that isn’t the issue. Claimed that the issue was ‘health and safety of the public’….’there has been testing of the mulch within that mulch facility’. Stated that his mother caught pneumonia which can be ‘parallel’ to the symptoms of legionella and that he doesn’t want it on ‘my conscience’ that the report has ‘cleared the mulch’ without us knowing. Tried to finish his questions.

HYAMS: ‘I have ruled that your question is improper’ and asked him to stop.

PENHALLURIACK dissented from the ruling and said that he moves a motion and that he would like Hyams to ‘call a vote of councillors’

HYAMS: ‘could you point to me in the Local Law where it says you can dissent’?

PENHALLURIACK: ‘I ask that you put it to a democratic vote’

HYAMS: said he would if he could find that section which would allow him to do this.

PENHALLURIACK: said that it should be council and councillors that make decisions and not the mayor that the mayor is simply ‘first among equals’

HYAMS then read out the section from the Local Law which says that the chairperson is the ultimate arbiter on points of order.

PENHALLURIACK: stated that this isn’t a point of order. ‘I’m asking for dissent from the ruling’.

HYAMS: said that Lipshutz made a point of order and he’s ruled on that point of order.

PENHALLURIACK: Asked Hyams if he was ‘frightened’ of the report and voting on this

HYAMS: Said that Penhalluriack was now debating something else. ‘I’ve made a ruling on a point of order’.

TANG: “Point of clarification’ Said he was trying to figure out the point of order ‘what basis were you saying you were ruling the question out of order?’

HYAMS: ‘that it was improper…breach of Local Government Act (conflict of interest) …may be breach….misuse of position (trying to get information through his position as a councillor that he couldn’t get through VCAT)….and continuation of behaviour (that O’Neill and Ombudsman saw as) ‘bullying’. Said that if a councillors action breaches the Local Government act and Code of Conduct then it’s ‘improper’

 

April 7, 2012

The Truth Shall Set You Free!

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

Item 4.4 of the Special Council Meeting involved the ‘conflict of interest & Laneway’ issue. In the accompanying Officers’ report (which again has no name attached to it!) there is the statement –

“As the substance of this matter was handled under delegation and has not previously been considered at a Council Meeting, documents relevant to the Ombudsman’s Report are attached.

1. Recommendation That Council note that Council’s in-house lawyer (Corporate Counsel) rejected the proposal in relation to the laneway on 22 October 2009.”

We could again quibble and ask why only a selective version of correspondence is suddenly made public. What’s more important however is the statement as to whether the question of the laneway has ever come up in any shape or form at a council meeting. Clever wordplay such as ‘substance’ cannot disguise the fact that the laneway issue has featured prominently in previous formal council decisions. We refer readers to the minutes of 25th September, 2007 and the 16th October, 2007 where the question of the laneway and adverse possession were constantly referred to. We quote from the minutes of 25th September –

“Proposed construction of buildings and works over the right of way

The applicant does not own the right of way. It is a road within the meaning of the Road Management Act 2004, which is available for public use.

The applicant has rights to use it to access his property. The two adjoining residential properties facing Hawthorn Road also have access rights over the right of way from their properties.

The structure will physically block access to part of the right of way for the two Hawthorn Road residential properties, and prevent public access..

As an aside, the applicant has lodged an adverse possession claim for the right of way through the Land Titles Office. This process has not concluded. Notwithstanding this, it has no bearing on the town planning decision before Council”.

Also in these minutes there is an ‘addendum’ from planner Effie Tangalakis which ‘corrects’ the earlier officers’ report in its comments on the laneway. It reads in part:

“At its meeting of 4th September 2007, Council deferred consideration of Item 8.5 until the next Council meeting. The decision to defer the matter was subject to clarification on the ownership of the right of way affected by the proposal.

The right of way consists of two parts; a northern and southern portion. The southern portion is owned by Katrine Isobel Penhalluriack subject to an easement of carriageway in favour of the abutting properties in Hawthorn Road.

The Certificates of Title to numbers 339 and 341 Hawthorn Road show the combined northern and southern portions as being a “road”. The ownership of the right of way, as with the ownership of the subject site or adjoining properties, does not affect the town planning consideration or the planning merits of the case. What is significant though are the carriageway rights to the abutting properties over the land on which the planning permit is sought for a building.

As indicated in the Council report, this outcome does not constitute proper and orderly Planning”.

Council meeting of September 25th 2007 contains emails sent by Penhalluriack to councillors. The emails focus on the inaccuracies in the officer’s report especially in relation to the laneway issue. It’s also clear from these emails that Penhalluriack as a citizen, not a councillor, had meetings with councillors regarding the issue – as is the right of any ratepayer.

Penhalluriack’s application was eventually passed 6 to 3. Those voting in favour WHO ARE CURRENTLY SERVING COUNCILLORS WERE : Tang, Lipshutz and Esakoff. 

To therefore claim that the issue of the laneway has been exclusively handled under delegation and has never ‘in substance’ come up before council is both untrue and another example of selective corporate memory. Even the ombudsman reveals that current councillors had knowledge of such dealings when he states: “that the document that Cr Penhalluriack was seeking was created before Cr Penhalluriack became a Councillor and was created for the purposes of advising former Councillors of Mr Penhalluriack’s various disputes with the council.” 

All councillors therefore knew about the disputed laneway. Several of them had even voted on the application that contained the contested ‘roadway’. To now plead ‘ignorance’ and the furphy that it was all handled under delegation does not coincide with the facts of the matter. None of these councillors are poor, innocent bystanders, ignorant of what has gone on. This is simply another example of misrepresentation and deliberate distortion of the facts. More than anything, Lipshutz, Tang and Esakoff have played a major part in this whole fiasco.  

When Lipshutz, Tang and the others last Tuesday night voted to unanimously accept the recommendation they created a further black mark against themselves! Lobo’s pathetic attempt to disengage himself from the situation with his totally irrelevant argument is even more laughable, especially when he took the Ombudsman to task with the following comments: 

LOBO: read the title of the ombudsman’s report and stated that he had to ‘wrestle’ with this since the meaning of ‘governance’ embraces all councillors and staff in providing ‘transparent and accountable local governance’. Went on to say that he thought he and others had done ‘all we could do to help’ Penhalluriack and as a result he rejected the title of the ombudsman’s report saying that it should have instead been called bullying etc. ‘by a councillor of the city of Glen Eira’. Lobo then claimed that the ombudsman has ‘painted all of us’ into the ‘category of poor governance’. He concluded by saying that ‘we have done what we had to do’. 

PILLING: reiterated the blurb that this issue hadn’t been handled at a council meeting and that it was all done under delegation and he supported the recommendation. 

Our conclusion is that the ombudsman on this one point at least got it right. All councillors are tainted by their failure to provide good governance in continually accepting without question or comment the nonsense that is put before them by administrators.  

 

April 3, 2012

Special Council Meeting

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

A few preliminary comments on tonight’s Special Council Meeting –

  • Doors were again locked
  • Residents attending the meeting in order to find out what was going on would have left none the wiser and certainly confused as to (a) why the urgency, and (b) what the outcomes were
  • History revisionists were out in full force

We report on Item 4.1 – noting and ‘adopting’ the Ombudsman’s report.

HYAMS: Asked if anyone had a conflict of interest to declare. No one did. Hyams moved the motion including that the Secretary of the Department implement recommendation 2 and 3 of the ombudsman’s report. Pilling seconded. Began by explaining why there wasn’t 7 days notice because needed a ruling from VCAT before the compulsory conference which is set down for next week. so there’s a ‘very tight time frame’…’I find the report to be a very accurate recounting of the facts…..behaviour of Cr Penhalluriack and the effects of the behaviour’. (Spoke about how on the night of the Mayoral election many councillors referred to the ‘difficult’ year that Esakoff had had as Mayor)….’now…the community understands why….significant report (because Ombudsman lists all of his previous reports and only 8 of them concern councils and only 2 are about individual councillors) ‘so clearly when the Ombudsman releases a report about a single councillor’ (not to be ignored).

Read out Paragraph 12 which talked about Penhalluriack ‘contesting the rules governing his behaviour in a forceful and aggressive way’…’that’s why we come to this situation….(referred to his tv interview and that they didn’t include the entire comment) ‘Cr Penhalluriack is a very successful businessman used to running his own show….having his own way….has trouble with the contraints imposed on councillors via the Local Government Act…(Mentioned that the report is) ‘largely uncritical of council and its efforts….critical on council being too lenient on Cr Penhalluriack….(3 aspects to the report – mulch facility). Municipal Inspector ‘has released a letter to us that said there is insufficient evidence to satisfy the evidentiary burden of proof required for criminal cases…..(therefore no action but Ombudsman looked at misconduct which)’would have a lesser evidentiary burden’…..so because something isn’t prosecutable as a crime doesn’t mean it isn’t misconduct’…..’so the Municipal Inspector and Ombudsman aren’t necessarily incompatible….(stated that he didn’t think that Penhalluriacks ‘motivations’ re the mulch were to profit his business)….’but motivation and even action you take doesn’t matter’…..what matters is that the interest exists….(Said that he had argued before that there wasn’t a conflict of interest and that he had moved the amendment to withdraw the mulch from the allegations to go to the councillor conduct panel)…’but having seen the Ombudsman’s report (he accepts that there could be a conflict of interest)….

‘Laneway matter seems to be pretty straight forward….(he wasn’t present at the meetings)…but that’s the ombudsman’s findings and we’re obliged (to accept them)….(as to the bullying)’I have to agree…..’given the repeated nature of these infringements….(then findings of misconduct and serious misconduct) ‘may not suffice’…..’under Section 81k of the Local Government Act (VCAT can find misconduct and serious misconduct but )‘the ongoing behaviour…justifies us asking the other parties to endorse the ombudsman’s recommendations as well’….’I would hope that the Secretary would send the right message about the importance’ (of the report). (As to recommendation 3 then the processes are ‘cumbersome’ and expensive for councils and when there is a councillor who is) ‘potentially far more disruptive than Cr. Penhalluriack could practically shut down the council ….make all discussions impossible’….

ASKED FOR TIME EXTENSION. Motion was carried. Penhalluriack asked for a division. ‘You really want a division on whether I should be allowed to talk any longer’. Penhalluriack answered ‘yes’. Tang raised a point of order that you can request a division on a motion

Against: Forge & Penhalluriack

Hyams: Perhaps Cr Forge (might like to see what Cr Penhalluriack) is doing before she puts her hand up next time.

PENHALLURIACK: Asked Hyams to withdraw the comment. Hyams asked ‘On what grounds” and Penhalluriack said that it was ‘rude’ and ‘not necessary’. Hyams responded that that wasn’t grounds for a point of order. But ‘I will withdraw’.

HYAMS: went on to reiterate that when a councillor is disruptive and could close down council that there are far ‘wider matters’ to be considered and that’s why there’s the recommendation to the Secretary.

PILLING: ‘I fully accept this Ombudsman’s report…seriousness of the report…many instances of councillor misconduct….

PENHALLURIACK: Started off by stating that people need to ‘look at background…arisen because Andrew Newton refuses to speak to me…..refuses mediation….(refuses to discuss) ‘the problem he obviously has with me….I feel that problem has existed ever since I was elected….made my life very difficult….bully in this area is not me…I am the victim of bullying….from all of the councillors ….ostracised me….forced me from my place of work…(Said that both the O’Neill report and Ombudsman’s report are based on) ‘opinion….who may be lying through their teeth….when you get in the witness box….you are named…subject to…cross examination….I have no idea who in this room has given evidence…ombudsman is a great institution….digs out corruption….I am not corrupt and I have never bullied anybody in this room. (Admitted to getting frustrated) ‘but I am not a bully’. (Went on to state that the ombudsman investigator (Mcullough) has) ‘quite a file’…..most unhelpful (in getting copy of meeting with him)….in my interview…..all I was asked about was the mulch shed….(not the other matters and he doesn’t know who raised them)….’I am the person who has been victimised in all this’ (didn’t have to go this far because council could have gone to mediation before O’Neill and Esakoff simply handed it over to council)…‘council resolution was to (go to mediation first and this didn’t happen)’.

LIPSHUTZ: didn’t want to comment on the report because ‘it speaks for itself…endorses (the recommendation because it is ‘general’….’where you have any councillor’ (causing problems and not like parliament)‘we’re a band of 9 councillors and we work together’….’when a councillor does not do so….intolerable situation...Local Government Act doesn’t do what should be done…’quick and easy solution’….allows the mess to…drag on….forever and ever…..(Commented on Penhalluriack’s claim that he was ostracised in that every councillor) ‘at one stage….tried to assit Cr Penhalluriack…..unfortunately (Penhalluriack says I’m right all the time and you people are wrong)…‘I reject absolutely that this is Mr Newton’s fault….’not about mediation’…’went as far as getting a report….unfortunate….let the law take its course….(we’ve got a system and have to abide by it right or wrong).

MAGEE: Stated that it’s been ‘going on for quite some time’. The recommendations will perhaps also go to VCAT after the Councillor Conduct Panel ‘that’s where we get the opportunity to question…(Penhalluriack has opportunity to)’present evidence himself’…’the evidence from both sides needs to be put together (and someone independent adjudicate). Stated that when all the evidence has been put forward that he’s looking forward to a decision, ‘a definitive answer’….’somewhere a defining line where we can accept the answers….at the moment I ….endorse the recommendations of the Ombudsman….(but also wanted the end of the process)

FORGE: Said last 17 months have been difficult and that she and Cr. Penhalluriack have ‘worked very closely’, and ‘every blow that he has been feeling I feel as well…(reiterated that at VCAT they can be cross examined and)’get an answer to these questions’….

MAGEE:Brought up point of order that he didn’t say anything about being cross examined but that Penhalluriack could ask questions.

TANG: Said that he thought councillors needed to explain in a council meeting ‘how they react and why…..ongoing process….tying to work with Penhalluriack’ (objected to the term ‘ostracise’ because he claimed that all councillors)’had tried in lengthy…conversations…..early…late….hardware store….tried to work with Cr Penhalluriack to achieve what he wants to do within the prism of the Local Government Act….to try and get the information that….(he wants and whether his motions are)’reasonable within the confines of theLocal Government Act’. Accepts the ombudsman’s findings because councillors have employed ‘abundant caution’…..trying to gather all the evidence before proceeding….(outside and putting all this to Penhalluriack)….’only after that process did council go outside….to resolve these issues…..flush out these issues….Cr Penhalluriack himself decided to go to VCAT….Ombudsman has obviously decided to independently investigate….(council didn’t think that Penhalluriack had a conflict of interest over mulch)…ombudsman is not in the position of a councillor….(time extension)….I accept the finding….notwithstanding that I may have taken a different position in the past….(Said that Penhalluriack’s claim that he wasn’t asked about all the recommendations/allegations that Penhalluriack would have got the ombudsman’s report in draft format to respond, same with internal investigation)…’was provided for….I agree with councillors who have said he has been disruptive….process needs to be resolved….agree with recommendations….it could have been resolved easier….given our obligations as councillors…..taken all reasonable steps we could….(now with the ombudsman’s report) ‘we can do nothing else’.

PENHALLURIACK: Asked that the Municipal Inspector’s report 15th March and 26th August 2010 ‘be incorporated into the minutes’. Pilling seconded. Tang asked why he wanted these documents and which versions since council got one version and Penhalluriack another one. Penhalluriack said that these documents ‘throw a different light….(on the obmudsman’s report reagarding the mulch and misuse of his position to enter the CEO’s office.)

HYAMS: Stated that there no compunction on anyone concerned about workplace safety ‘to undergo mediation’…(said he was aware of mediation in another council where the councillor ended up ramming an officer’s head into a wall)…”I don’t know that mediation is necessary…what is obligatory is for council to provide a safe workplace….(Penhalluriack claims that he’s been ostracised but it’s )unfortunate that (his behaviour has lead us to taking this aciton)…’the only criticism the obmudsman had of us is that we were too lenient on him….(reiterated how councillors had spent much time discussing these issues with Penhalluraick)….’we had an indepeendent expert come in….inappropriate behaviour…ombudsman (also found this)….”I hope that if VCAT comes to the same conclusion that we don’t hear they are also wrong….(voting isn’t about whether Penhalluriack is ‘liked’)….’very personable….’I’ve had a good relationship with him (most of the time)….our duty to look at this objectively….honour our obligations….

MOTION PUT: IN FAVOUR – Lipshutz, Lobo, Magee, Pilling, Tang, Hyams

Against: Forge & Penhalluriack.

 

March 30, 2012

Special Council Meeting

Posted by gleneira under GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance
[6] Comments 
Special Council Meeting — Tuesday 3 April 2012  
In accordance with Section 84(1) and Section 89(4A) of the Local Government Act 1989, notice is given that a Special Council meeting will be held on Tuesday 3 April 2012 commencing at 7pm in the Council Chamber, corner Hawthorn and Glen Eira Roads, Caulfield.
The business to be transacted at this meeting will be to consider a report entitled: “Conflict of Interest, poor governance and bullying at the City of Glen Eira Council” that was tabled in the Victorian State Parliament on 28 March 2012 by the Victorian Ombudsman and to address the report’s Recommendations. The urgent and extraordinary circumstances that require this meeting to be held with less than seven day’s notice arise because Council needs to address the recommendations in the report as a matter of urgency given that a compulsory conference is due to be held at the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) on 12 April 2012 in relation to Cr Penhalluriak and Councillor conduct matters.
Chief Executive Officer Andre Newton
 

March 21, 2012

Council Meeting: Playing To The Gallery

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

It’s  quite fascinating what a packed gallery of over 150 people, plus formal objections totalling close to a hundred can do to certain councillors. They miraculously discover that they are not bereft of social conscience. ‘Residential Amenity’ become the buzz words for the night and the constant refrains of the past – such as ‘we can’t refuse because the developer will go to VCAT and get more’ – is suddenly swamped by concern over noise, environment, traffic, parking, mass, height, etc. Instead of passing development applications with conditions, last night saw the outright rejection of 2 such proposals. And not a whimper about VCAT, or administering ‘planning law’, from previous doom sayers – Lipshutz and Hyams. Esakoff was absent!

Please note: we are extremely pleased for the objectors’ and admire the obvious effort they’ve put in. All we’re commenting upon is the lack of consistency in the arguments presented when weighed up against previous contentious applications. It is very definitely an election year!

Morrice St Child Care Centre

LIPSHUTZ moved motion to refuse planning permit on grounds of not meeting child care policy of planning scheme; ‘detrimental impact’ of traffic; noise. Lobo seconded.

Started off by stating that it’s in his ward and that he knows the area very well and knows both ‘many of the objectors’ and ‘the developers’ so he’s got a ‘totally open mind’. Admitted that there was a ‘need for a childcare centre in Glen Eira….(and if this was positioned on Glen Eira Rd then he probably would be voting for it)…’but it is in the wrong place’….(Morrice St is small, residential, and plenty of schools near by and ‘traffic flows through the side streets’….(Stated that there was staggered traffic peaks but that there would still be an impact on traffic and ‘most days there has been a lot of traffic’….(and this will) ‘impact on a quiet residential area’…..’inappropriate’…(basement car parking also not good for entry and exit. Stated he’d like childcare centres throughout the municipality ‘but they’ve got to be in the right place’…(Said that entrances aren’t in Glen Eira Rd. because Vic Roads wouldn’t give permission)….(asked whether he ‘wants’ a childcare centre of 120 kids or) ‘do I want to adversely impact on the neighbours…..simple. It’s a high quality residential area….(and doesn’t want traffic to disrupt people’s amenity). (Applause)

LOBO: Read out from the planning scheme about developments having to be ‘sympathetic’ to the local environment. ‘If this was fair dinkum (then the proposal) would not be the subject of debate this evening...(said that the plans are incompatible with surrounding houses and if allowed would) ‘destroy existing streetscape’. Mentioned that it was a ‘commercial enterprise’ and didn’t fit in the street. Said that traffic is already ‘chockablock’ and if more are allowed then the area will become a ‘living nightmare’. Spoke about the times he had gone down to view the area and traffic and that people are concerned about double parking, traffic, and 3 playgrounds including a rooftop that will create ‘noise’. Named other child care facilities already close by …’business enterprises….should go in suburbs where we have a dearth’ (of these facilities). Said that if approved then the only solution to the traffic problems would be by becoming ‘spiderman’. The decision would be important for lifestyle of residents for the future.(Applause)

PILLING spoke against. Supports ‘good planning policy’ and ‘community child care centres’ and ‘good residential amenity’. …’I believe that all three have been supported by’ (the recommendation of officers). …’always a balancing act’ (and the developer has tried hard to) ‘get balance right’. (booing)

HYAMS: tried to stop booing by saying that he didn’t mind heckling but he thought that councillors ‘had a right to express their views’

MAGEE: Started by asking where childcare centres should be placed. Since Council doesn’t have the money to keep ‘building them, we are in a way reliant on developers’….’disappointing when it has such a great impact on local amenity’….’we have to weigh up one against the other’. Stated that every centre and school is in a residential area. Had an email from a resident about traffic so he went down to view the area at peak hour. On one occasion only 7 cars left the street and on another only ‘9 exited and 1 entered’. ‘I sort of wonder where the grid lock is’. Appreciated the impact but also ‘concerned’ about population growth in the municipality ‘what do we do?’…(there are 15,000 to 18,000 children) ‘council has to weigh up where do we put them’ and when ‘developers come along’ and are willing to put in ‘6 or 7 million dollars council has to look at this seriously’….’is the noise worth the benefit……do we send out children to the industrial area of Moorabbin….we have to put them where people are….(the need is weighed up against amenity and Council doesn’t have the money) ‘and I must put the children of Glen Eira ahead of residents’.

FORGE: Went to school at Shelford and Caulfield Grammar….’even back then it was a very very busy site’. Had spoken with headmistress of  Shelford and the most important thing was ‘safety for the children’. ‘To me (with buses) it is an accident waiting to happen’….’a great idea but the wrong place’ (applause). Spoke about a letter from a resident who does shift work and how the noise is ‘intolerable’…’blood curdling screams’. Shelford has got a few vacant places but ‘not in competition with local areas’ (Applause)

TANG: ‘vexed question’. Said that the issue is ‘community benefit versus community benefit’. ….it’s about our community’ (including children and it’s this versus residential amenity). Said that the decision ultimately hinges on ‘traffic and parking’ and on the other grounds supports the provision of childcare. Mentioned that there is a policy because ‘we want to provide a framework’. Argued that the situation is bad at the moment because of the schools and existing parking situation ‘but it won’t be this development that ruins residential amenity….this development will not have an unreasonable impact …based on traffic and parking….we don’t throw out the baby with the bath water and reject the proposal…..I fall just on the side of it being acceptable’. Had further conditions that if knocked back he believed would ‘help ameloriate’ the noise impacts. Difficult because of ‘competing interests, but in my mind competing community benefits’

PENHALLURIACK: ‘this should not proceed’ (Applause) Spoken to many of the people involved and developer. ‘The problem lies squarely with our planning regulation….this should not go in this area’. Read a resident’s letter from someone who lived at the back of a child care centre and which outlined the noise and ‘screaming children’ and ‘cleaners’ at night. The letter went on to say that even when complaints are made the community’s feelings are never taken into account. The writer would never live near a childcare centre again. Penhalluriack spoke about how people enjoy their back yards and being able to park on the street and if the project goes ahead it will ‘threaten all that’. Said that child care centres are important and needed but ‘in the right location’. (Applause)

HYAMS: spoke about non residential uses policy. Said that ‘benefit to the community is a legitimate aspect’ but planning issues also need to be taken into account. ‘tough decision….I do come down on the side of councillors who are against’ (APPLAUSE). Gave other reasons such as the size of the block and that it extends way down Morrice Street; with Lobo saw 6 cars trying to get out of the street. ‘there certainly are traffic concerns’. Also mentioned that the buildings are ‘slightly higher than is permitted by the codes’.

TANG then jumps up and wants to ask a question. Hyams permits this. Tang asks Penhalluriack why he said that ‘council policies are wrong’ especially since Council has adopted unanimously the recent Child Care Policy…’what particularly should Council do to amend its policy?’

PENHALLURIACK: answered that the central point is whether uses are ‘sympathetic with the neighbourhood’ and that’s a judgement that councillors need to make ‘but so does Mr Akehurst’s department in their advising future applicants’. Said it has to be discretionary and that ‘we are part of the community’ when these sorts of decisions are made. Said that he’s suggesting that the system needs to be clearer because this ‘poor developer has spent a lot of money, a lot of time….going as far as this and it could have been nipped in the bud’ through discussions with councillors and the planning department.

LIPSHUTZ: Agreed with Tang that it’s about ‘community benefit’. Stated that centres have to be where the people are but didn’t agree with Lobo that there are ‘sufficient’ centres …(but the issues is ultimately about the traffic) Said that the traffic report by the developer and council ‘must have been taken on Friday night’ (when there were no cars. He goes every day and) ‘I can see where the cars are…on most days there is a great deal of traffic in the area….balancing act…’the other side is….I’ve looked at it and I think the community benefit is on the other side…amenity (is that you) ‘dont’ want a facility like this in this area’. (if on Kooyong Rd, Glen Huntly Rd, then that would be okay but not Glen Eira Rd.)….’confluence of issues’ (which means that this will be a very)’poor development in this area’….appropriate approach is to reject it’. (Applause)

MOTION CARRIED – VOTING AGAINST WERE: TANG, MAGEE, PILLING

 

 

March 20, 2012

Governance: How Low Can You Go?

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

The last part of tonight’s council meeting plummeted to new depths that we thought impossible even for this council. But it seems that where good governance and fair play is concerned there is no limit to how low one can go! We are referring in particular to the Councillor Question items and the Requests for Reports.

Cr. Forge’s question (printed in the agenda) basically asked for the costs related to the Penhalluriack Councillor Code of Conduct, the O’Neill Report charges and a few other ‘incidentals’.

HYAMS; ‘approximately $65,000….to date….(can’t give full estimate because that’s dependent) ‘on Cr Penhalluriack’s conduct….(stated that it was) ‘relevant that all expenditure … due to Cr. Penhalluriack’s  behaviour (and all councillors including Forge) ‘resolved to refer Cr Penhalluriack to the Councillor Conduct Panel…..behaviour towards officers which was found to be inappropriate’ (by O’Neill)…included behaviour….(which) breached …conflict of interest provisions of Local Government Act….(Penhalluriack’s choice to refer this to VCAT also) ‘signifianctly increased the costs’.

Went on to state in answer to the second part of Forge’s question that he ‘was not responsible’ for giving advice to Council’s solicitors. …’it is up to …officers to give effect to …resolutions….(officers may consult with councillors but )’that is up to them’. Hyams concluded that he doesn’t ‘propose’ any mechanism to ensure that councillors are kept apprised of what’s going on.

No councillor commented on this response!

Penhalluriack then asked a question of his own relating to the Audit Committee Annual Report and where it was tabled at a council meeting. He went on to ask: how long Lipshutz, Gibbs and McLean had been on the Audit Committee and why the appointments for the latter were held in camera.

HYAMS: Responded that the audit committee’s report was included in Council’s 2010/11 Annual Report. He then read out the entire entry from the Annual Report. Went on to state that this had been ‘circulated to all councillors in August 2011′ (and adopted at Special Council Meeting in October 2011)…’all 9 councillors were present; the resolution was unanimous….(then stated that the audit committee itself had approved a report in 2011 and that Magee, Lipshutz, Esakoff, Forge and Penhalluriack were present)….’all 5 councillors received the report before the meeting’….’it will be included in the agenda for next ordinary Council Meeting in the same form that you have had for 4 months…..’

Went on to explain the composition of the Audit Committee and that these people are all appointed by council resolution. Lipshutz has been on the committee since 2006. Gibbs since 1998 and reappointed in February 2009; Mclean a member since 1999 and reappointed in February 2011.’ You voted in favour on all four occasions’….’Section 89 of the Local Government Act provides’ for matters regarding personnel to be ‘in camera’….the process …tonight is identical (to that done on) all previous occasions’.

ADVISORY COMMITTEES

Lipshutz was reappointed to the Audit Committee together with Lobo. Again no councillor uttered a word on this continued reappointment.

We will provide further details on what occurred in the coming days.

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »