GE Council Meeting(s)

Archived Posts from this Category

February 27, 2012

Agendas & More Secrecy

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

In the overall scheme of things, this is probably a very minor issue. However, we believe it illustrates much about both the continual bungling by this council and then the abuse of the ‘in camera’ component of the legislation in order to cover up and avoid real scrutiny of such bungled operations. We refer to Item 12.1 of the ‘in camera’ items: “12.1 under s89(2)(e) “proposed development” which relates to the gifting of land to Council (Hopkins St, McKinnon).”  It looks like we were again dead right!

Readers may recall that several weeks ago we highlighted the fact that owners along the Elster Creek trail were reclaiming their rightful land by moving their fences out into the trail proper. We also queried how council had invested hundreds of thousands of dollars on a yellow brick road without doing the necessary homework first.  It is now obvious that the path was potentially under threat by the realignment of property fencing. We concluded that council should have known what was likely to happen given past history of this area, and that they were literally caught with their pants down. We now conclude that this in camera item relates to this bungled issue for the following reasons:

  • Hopkins St. backs onto the Trail
  • Why would anyone ‘gift’ valuable land to the council unless there was a special need to do so?
  • Why would council go through the expense of ‘accepting’ such land unless there was a special need to do so?
  • Why is this item in camera? Surely when someone is so very generous and magnanimous as to ‘gift’ thousands of dollars of private property away, they deserve to be applauded, lauded, thanked. It isn’t every day that someone ‘gifts’ land  – especially with the price of land these days?

We connect the dots and make the following observations. The reason that this item is secret is because it would draw attention to another bungled Council operation. Council did not take into account the fact that its new path was either directly encroaching upon, or too close to residents’ properties to make for a viable shared path. The only solution was to either buy, or have land ‘gifted’ to them to avoid embarrassment and disclosure. Further, the fact that there is a plaque stuck in the middle of the trail at present acknowledging previous title transfers (2008) is further evidence that council should have known that there were numerous private parcels of land within the trail. This only raises the question of why these earlier land transfers are publically applauded and this one very generous act by a resident is conducted in secret. Our answer? To cover up what is another example of poor planning, poor decision making and a waste of residents’ money. All of this of course begs the question of how many other properties are entitled to move out and thus endanger the viability of the path? Will someone else suddenly ‘gift’ land to council?  Or will they exercise their legal rights to claim what is their land?

 

 

February 24, 2012

Agenda: More Smoke & Mirrors

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

For all those residents who want a clear understanding of how the Glen Eira bureaucracy works to obfuscate issues, hide the truth, contain (deliberate?) inaccuracies, and befuddle councillors with nonsense, then the agenda items for the upcoming council meeting are the perfect example. We’ll go through these one by one.

FLOODS, DRAINS AND ‘IMPERVIOUS SURFACES’

The Environmental Advisory Committee has been contemplating the need to do something about the amount of ‘impervious surfaces’ allowed on new developments.  Four months later, there is finally a ‘report’ written by Jeff Akehurst. True to form (ie. ESD design) the general gist of the argument goes– ‘let’s advocate to state government because we really don’t want each municipality to have its own set of rules and regulations, and of course Glen Eira Council has already got in place its own ‘existing tools’ to deal with this problem.” The only concession is that the Council will ‘advocate’ to government to allow them to reduce the current 80% limit – but only in MINIMAL CHANGE AREAS!! Tough luck if you happen to live in the majority of HOUSING DIVERSITY! Here are some wonderful quotes from this “report”.

“It is acknowledged that impervious surfaces and water run-off are important issues but it is considered preferable that they are managed in a more broad and uniform way rather than differently by each municipality. It follows that State initiated controls are favoured.”

“…as an interim measure only, an “Impervious Surface and Storm Water Practice Note” could be developed.”

“If policy is regarded as too onerous by the development industry, it will be challenged and most likely successfully challenged through the VCAT process.”

“A further policy limitation is the time it takes to amend the planning scheme to incorporate new policy. It could take years and ultimately there is a risk it may never be approved by the Minister.”

“Any policy, procedure or practice note to reduce the amount of impervious surfaces or retain water on site is not a long term substitute to upgrading the drainage system.”

Overall solutions recommended – an ‘information kit’; advocate for only Minimal Change Areas.

GESAC: POOLS STEERING COMMITTEE (9th February)

Most of this contains the Lipshutz ‘statement’ that’s on the GESAC webpage. However, under the heading of ‘cash flow’ we find: “The actual forecast reflects that the project is behind schedule and that council has levied significant Liquidated Damages due to delays”. Yet, we are still told that the project is ‘under budget’! Exactly what this means is anybody’s guess considering that expenses keep rolling in and that income is non-existent! Surely the more honest approach would not be to claim that the implied entire project is under budget, but just that the building contract may be – that’s if Hansen and Yuncken decide not to challenge the Liquidated Damages! Finally, there is a little note stating that Liipshutz actually ‘requests’ that councillors be briefed ‘at the next opportunity’!!!!

RECORDS OF ASSEMBLY (6th and 13th December – so much for January and half of Feb!)

These ‘records’ are nothing short of astounding. First off, we make the observation that there is incredible inconsistency in the declarations of conflict of interest by various individuals. Repeatedly councillors and administrators leave the room for a minute or two with no clear indication as to whether there has been a conflict of interest declared or whether this is simply another case of weak bladders!

One such instance is that Andrew Newton has left the room when the Grill’d item is discussed. We wonder: did he declare a conflict of interest? Is that why he has left the room? Is that why this item was deemed ‘confidential” when every other lease agreement is reported openly? If this was a declaration of conflict of interest, then why isn’t it recorded as such in the records of assembly?

Another important item reads: “Cr Penhalluriack – said that a Councillor Conduct Panel hearing was being held at the Town Hall tomorrow. He advised that his solicitor has written a letter”. This is an extraordinary inclusion since the decision to send Penhalluriack to a Panel was obviously taken ‘in camera’. Previously we’ve had numerous excuses as to why in camera items cannot be disclosed. Yet, here we have a seeming lapse in ‘confidentiality’ from those responsible in the creation of the document. Again, we have to ponder the consistency, rationale, and agenda of all such publications.

Also worthy of note is the number of ‘amendments’ to these records suggested by Hyams.

PUBLIC QUESTIONS REPORT

‘Clerical errors’ are becoming a way of life with this council. This is now the second time that there is an inaccuracy in reporting on public questions. We are told that 19 questions were asked from October to December and that only 1 was declared inadmissible. Again, totally wrong. Our records show that at least two public questions were declared inadmissible during this period due to ‘harassment’. Further, two questions were taken on notice at the December 13th council meeting, but only one has been recorded in the February minutes. Again, the other clerical error contained in this ‘response’ is that the questioners’ NAME AND ADDRESS are included in these public minutes. This breaches the Information Privacy Act!

There is plenty more in this agenda that we will report on in the coming days.

 

February 11, 2012

Compare & Contrast: Public Questions

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

As in many other matters, public questions at Glen Eira have steadily become a bureaucratic tour de force. You ask, and pray, that you receive a decent reply. It is no coincidence that the Mayor’s signed letter uses the words ‘council’s response’ since on far too many occasions the ‘response’ is certainly not an ‘answer’! If anything, council’s ‘responses’ often become a game of semantics, evasion, and pure doublespeak.

Glen Eira is also in the minority when it comes to the timing of public questions – at the end of often tedious and excruciatingly boring council meetings, when most of the gallery have left so that there are very few ‘witnesses’ left to the responses and the mumbled and hurried performance by Mr. Burke.

Residents should also note that two public questions taken ‘on notice’ at the December 13th Council Meeting are still to be tabled. That’s two months to receive a reply when residents are told that ‘responses’ will be available within 10 working days and tabled at the next ‘appropriate’ meeting.

By way of contrast, we’ve taken the following from The Mayne Report. Not included are the handful of councils that still have their public question time at the end of meetings. What should  be carefully noted are the number of oral and unscripted questions allowed by various councils and that questions may be directed to officers. None of this is permissible in Glen Eira!

Banyule – 15 minutes of oral questions are permitted before the formal commencement of each council meeting with a limit of 3 minutes per resident.

Darebin – unscripted oral public questions are permitted for up to 30 minutes during the formal meeting at the start after councillors have reported back on their activities

Moreland – Ordinary Council meetings include a Public Question Time segment at the beginning which provides an opportunity for individuals to have their say and discuss issues of interest to them

Nillumbik – Ordinary Council meetings include a Public Question Time segment at the beginning which provides an opportunity for individuals to have their say and discuss issues of interest to them

Ballarat – Ordinary Council meetings include a Public Question Time segment at the beginning of the meeting, which provides an opportunity for individuals to have their say

Bayside – Ordinary Council meetings include a Public Question Time segment at the beginning, which provides an opportunity for individuals to have their say and discuss issues of interest to them.

Boroondara – written questions are to be submitted in writing before the meeting, and are addressed at the beginning of the meeting.

Brimbank – The public have the opportunity to raise questions before an Ordinary Council Meeting, which are then answered in the Council Chamber at the beginning before general business. Questions must be submitted on a Council Public Question form

Casey – questions are allowed at the beginning, after confirmation of minutes, but the questioner must be present when the question is read, a maximum of two questions from any one person are allowed at each meeting.

Frankston – A Public Question Time is held at the beginning of each Ordinary Meeting where questions with and without notice are addressed. A maximum of three questions will be permitted per resident per meeting

Greater Bendigo – The public question time is held at the start of the meeting as close as practical to 6:00pm. A maximum of 30 minutes has been provided for registered and unregistered questions

Greater Geelong –  Ordinary Council meetings include a Public Question Time segment at the beginning of the meeting, which provides an opportunity for individuals to have their say.

Knox –  Council Meeting procedure includes public question time as a standard 3rd item on the Agenda in order to facilitate community participation in the meeting.

Maroondah –  question time is the second order of business at every Ordinary Meeting, to enable the general public to submit questions to Councillors or members of Council staff. Up to fifteen minutes will be allowed for the answering of all questions. A person must not submit more than two questions to a Council Meeting and must be present

Melton – Persons present in the Public Gallery will be given the opportunity to present any questions to Council during the meeting at the beginning, before items of business. All questions must be in writing and placed in the facility available in the Council Chamber Foyer by 7 pm on the evening of the meeting. A limit of one question per person per meeting will apply

Moonee Valley – From 6pm to 6.45pm, there is public forum and question time, and covers listed presentations, issues raised by citizens and questions without notice, so therefore it is not listed in the minutes. Formal meeting begins at 7pm.

Stonnington – unscripted public questions are permitted during the formal meeting at the beginning

Yarra Ranges – They can be lodged until 5pm on the day of the Council Meeting. A maximum of 15 minutes each meeting will be allocated to Question Time at the beginning as the last item before business. A limit of one question per person per meeting will apply

 

February 9, 2012

Council Meeting: The Bar Sinks Even Lower!

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

COUNCILLOR QUESTIONS

Penhalluriack’s question, as included in the agenda items, reads: “The tabling of a petition by constituents of this city was not accepted unanimously, but was opposed by certain councillors at the council meeting on the 22nd November 2011. A petition is one of the oldest and most sacred means of expression used by citizens. Tradition dictates that even the King must pay heed to his petitioners. I ask those Councillors on what grounds those (sic) they opposed its presentation to this Council?”

HYAMS: ‘aware that petition was being promoted through a blog’… (that always presents an) ‘unremittingly negative’ (view of council)……(gave example of Leader reporting on Community Satisfaction results and the blog printed this and not the later recant which was only referred to in a comment and this was to support) ‘a ludicrous conspiracy theory’ (about the Leader and Council. Went on to state that if the blog owners ‘have the confidence (about ‘accusations’)…’they would put their names to them….(which says a lot for) ‘their honesty and integrity that they hide behind anonymity…..(Regurgitated the Community Satisfaction Survey where 86% assessed council performance as ‘excellent’ and this ‘speaks volumes for the objectivity….of that blog….there has never been a positive post about Council…..unrepresentative ….of community sentiment…..(Thus the people who signed the petition) ‘were given misinformation in order to procure their signatures’ (and that’s why Hyams won’t accept the petition)…..’Question implies that petition should be received as a matter of course……we have the discretion to choose not to receive them….I chose to exercise this discretion…..Councillors should carefully consider every decision they make (and shouldn’t automatically accept everything).

LIPSHUTZ: ‘I concur with your comments’

ESAKOFF: ‘I also concur with your comments’.

PUBLIC QUESTIONS

One question relating to insurance for sporting groups was declared inadmissable due to ‘harassment’. Penhalluriack then rose and asked for an explanation of why the question is regarded as ‘harassment’. Hyams responded that council had ‘received over 130 questions’ in the space of a year ‘on one topic’ after which ‘the Council determined….(harassment and) this is another question along the same lines’ (therefore harassment again)…..

Penhalluriack then made the point that ‘harassment’ is from an individual and not about a subject…’a topic can’t harass’….’and isn’t the question also’ directed to Cr. Lipshutz?

HYAMS: repeated the 130 questions business  and said that the intention was to harass council ‘until councillors saw things the way’ (the group wanted them to see it)….’on that basis we decided it was harassment’.

PENHALLURIACK: ‘May I move dissent’.(from the ruling)?

HYAMS: ‘Yes, if you can find somewhere in the Local Law that allows you to do that’

PILLING: wanted to ask a question. Wanted a judgement on a clause in the Local Law

BURKE: basically (mumbled) that the chairperson has authority to rule. Burke then read out the followiing questions which included one to Lipshutz asking whether he would apologise for potentially misleading council via his statements of December 2010.

Lipshutz responded that he hadn’t mislead council so no apology ‘is required’.

Another question asked about the Facebook page published on this website and whether the public would be correct in concluding that there was a conflict of interest.

LIPSHUTZ: ‘never bother to read the blog…..(never) ‘anything positive about the council’….(when reading the blog you have to conclude that council is incompetent)….(reiterated about the Community satisfaction rating and ‘hiding behind anonymity’… (this anonymity would not protect the blog and moderators) ‘from damages claims….’I do not read the blog….(if his son’s name did appear on the blog then he was ‘unaware’ (and did not) ‘authorise’….’you have little knowledge or no knowledge of how Facebook operates’…..

TANG: wanted to ask Lipshutz a question

HYAMS: stated that there was no facility within the Local Law for councillors to question other councillors

BURKE: read out next question which asked whether council had finally validated the signatures for the petition and for the final number of signatories.

HYAMS: Stated that the petition had already been dealt with  on November 22nd and that it wasn’t council’s ‘role to validate the signatures’ on the petition.

PENHALLURIACK: that he had a ‘second response’ to the question. ‘I dissent….(referred to council website and the need to submit petitions 2 days prior to council meetings and the purpose would be so) ‘that officers can count and validate the sigatures….I am disappointed that the petitioners…..(weren’t counted since it sets a poor precedent for future petitions) ….‘subject of a petition should be irrelevant to the way it is handled‘…(here the subject matter) ‘has meant that petitioners have been treated with less respect’ …’for my part I apologise for that’.

 

February 8, 2012

Council Meeting: Rose Coloured Glasses?

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

Item: Financial Report

LIPSHUTZ: “once again a very good performance…..(surplus of $4 million) GESAC….impact on council…short term some slight impact on our (income)…(can be proud of the fact) “that we do spend our money on capital works…trees, drains, paths… …(every month except December has increased in capital works expenditure)…..’improving our drains….improving our infrastructure….(this council) spends money for the benefit of residents….good result….demonstrates once again that Mr. Swabey’s team are handling our finances very admirably….

PILLING: Basically endorsed Lipshutz’s statement and that GESAC (when it’s opened) will be a ‘wonderful facility’…at this stage of the cycle things are tight…but with good management….healthier prospect…’

PENHALLURIACK: ‘I am concerned…..(with statement that we’re in a healthy state of affairs when the Auditor General labelled this council as) high risk….for a reason….a high risk council is a high risk council…(Spoke about council’s deposits of which) 73% are (in funds which have been downgraded from triple AAA to double AA and )that concerns me because this council has always had a sound financial footing….(referred to page 9 of the report on cash flow and that the Auditor General thought that this was) important enough to downgrade council……GESAC is a problem and I don’t want to say I told you so….has a very unusual effect on our books because ($25 million dollar borrowings) and we negotiated that loan prior to 2 rate reductions (hence paying more without) any income from GESAC….even when we (get income)…it still won’t be paying back the interest….(plus) costs of running GESAC…..it’s going to have Mr Lipshutz some impact

LIPSHUTZ: interrupted with ‘Cr. Lipshutz’

PENHALLURIACK: Cr. Lipshutz beg your pardon……I think we need to look very closely at this…(spoke about increasing rates to 9% and said that in NSW they’d brought down legislation to fix rates at 3.6%) that should be a maximum for us as well….we need to look at this without our rose coloured glasses on…..see what we can do to rationalise….(we do have a) serious financial situation….and need to face up to it….

TANG: Didn’t want to comment on the report itself but just ‘the things that have been raised in relation to the report…..(said that in raising the Auditor General’s report Penhalluriack made some) ‘false connections’…’I don’t think anything is a surprise…..councillors….(would have liked) GESAC to be open in December….the fact that we’re going into 25 million dollars debt…the fact that it will have an impact on our liquidity….reserves….we won’t be delaying (capital works)….have to forego other (unplanned projects)…none of this is a surprise….(Penhalluriack made these arguments when he voted against going into GESAC)….’we knew we would be here’…’we knew that we expected that the community would pay….none of this is a surprise….(Auditor general didn’t make any connection between income. Council is high risk because) we preplanned for ….we would go into debt….for a fixed period of time. Asked Penhalluriack – ‘Are you aware of how many (criteria the auditor general used to assess council and) which factors influenced the Auditor General’s decision?’…..

PENHALLURIACK: ‘I’m not an accountant….(but respects the Auditor General’s) judgement…

TANG: ‘I think we see eye to eye on that….(did auditor general make his decision on anything) other than liquidity management which council knew was going to be an issue?

PENHALLURIACK: I don’t know the answer to that question…I would be very disappointed if that was simply the only reason

LIPSHUTZ: Asked Swabey to explain the ‘issue of council’s current status…’

SWABEY:  Said there were about ‘5 or 6 ratios’….in four or five council exceeded….ratio requirements….liquidity we fell slightly under 1…the prescriptive nature of the auditor General’s assessment …..(due to current ratio)…(council runs down its funds around June or July) ‘at that point we were slightly under our current liabilities….at no stage….any problems….(always pay creditors)…..Spoke about the Strategic Resource plan and that debt repayments haven’t been delayed; interest is fixed;)…yes we do have forecast which says we will still have close to 1 liquidity ratio….we don’t expect this to be the case as of 30th June 2012….low liquidity ratio for a number of years….we expected that….high capital program…..

Hyams then asked about the consequences of being rated high risk

Swabey responded that council now has to report every 6 months on council position. Also said that liquidity ratio ‘changes from month to month’

LIPSHUTZ: Didn’t like Penhalluriack’s ‘scaremongering’….(knew what we were) ‘getting into….when GESAC is up and running and we’ve got 3000, 4000 members….I told you so…(Spoke about the past and the two pools and that the Northern memorial pool was) ‘a drain on council….unsustainable….we owe it to the community to have something that is worthwhile….state of the art pool that we knew would impose (some problems on community)….but also knew….short term pain for long term gain….this council is looked at as ….one of the best managed councils…clearly there is nothing to fear….sound….

MOTION PUT: Carried – Penhalluriack voted against.

The rest of the meeting will be reported on in the coming days.

 

February 3, 2012

Agenda Items: More Secrecy & Sham

Posted by gleneira under GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance
[11] Comments 

A new year has begun, but nothing seems to have changed in terms of accountability and transparency when it comes to Glen Eira City Council. We note the TOTAL SILENCE on the following crucial issues:

  • No Pools Steering Committee report on GESAC. Given the absolute schemozzle, public outcries, and the fact that we are now into February, residents have every right to expect an up-to-date report on the progress of the pool. And by some miracle, an announcement of opening date.
  • No Audit Committee Annual Report! Regardless of whether this has been presented in secret at an assembly meeting, it should still be published and disclosed to residents.
  • No Records of Assembly. The last published record dates back to 22nd November. That means that all of December and January meetings remain undisclosed. We cannot believe that it takes two months to prepare a set of skeletal and non-informative records!

Other major lowlights are:

  • The ceding of public land via a section 173 agreement. In return, Council will gain a public toilet – but will still have to pay for maintenance, water and electricity. In the meantime, the developer gains 4 storey multi-units.
  • More secret ‘legal advice’ – this time about VCAT

What really caught our eye was the proposed development in Balaclava Rd – 4 storey, offices, retail and 14 units. It seems that the original application for 2 units lapsed and this is now a second bite at the cherry – with the increased residential component. We’ve had a good laugh at the following statements from the Officer’s Report (Ms Snell) and urge readers to carefully note the double speak of the following:

“There will be no excessive overshadowing impacts on residential properties due to the orientation of the site.”

“A relatively high level of natural light will be provided to each dwelling through the use of suitably located windows. In addition all bedrooms have direct access to natural light and allow for adequate natural ventilation with the exception of four dwellings.”

”It is also recommended that the disabled car space be converted to a visitor car space”. (Please note: the recommendation is that 22 onsite car parking spots are sufficient for 14 units, offices and retail shops).

‘No on-site loading facilities are proposed. This is considered to be appropriate given service vehicles can use Stanley Parade”.

Once again this Council fails to adhere to its own planning scheme and regulations.

 

December 15, 2011

Councillor Questions & Petitions

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

At Tuesday night’s council meeting Penhalluriack asked officers the following in relation to petitions and the guidelines which they are meant to follow. This is what happened:

PENHALLURIACK: stated that Council website said that petitions must be handed in 2 working days prior to Council Meetings. ‘why this lead time is required’ and ‘what is the legal grounds for this requirement…..(On Nov. 22nd a petition of 523 signatures was tabled. Penhalluriack read out the petition.)….’submitted 2 days (before council meeting and) signatures checked by organisers.) ‘Has this number and what number been confirmed’ (since the minutes of 22nd November stated ‘unverified number’)….’will the correct number be incorporated into the minutes of this Council Meeting under Item 5…..?’

BURKE: ‘Petitions (are submitted) in the manner which Council has determined….council accepted the minutes that you’re referring to at Agenda Item 4 of tonight’s meeting’.

PENHALLURIACK: Stated that his question wasn’t answered. Repeated the question and asked for response in writing.

BURKE: Taken on notice and repeated that ‘…petitions are treated the way council wants them treated….reading over my notes (minutes of 22nd November) …were adopted unanimously’

PENHALLURIACK: ‘I ask when did council determine this’ (and asked again that his questions be answered).

BURKE: Claimed that he had seen ‘so many names crossed out…in a way…(people)realise what they’ve signed’ (and changed their minds).

INTERJECTION FROM GALLERY: ‘I crossed out those names…..I’m challenging what Mr. Burke said’

PENHALLURIACK: Stated that he believed all the signatures had been checked by organisers and assumes as a result of the comment from gallery that the names were crossed out to ensure only those residents from Glen Eira were listed as final signatories.

ESAKOFF: ‘Mr Burke will get back to you on the detail…..’

COMMENTS:

Councillors were sent the following email upon receipt of the petition at the council service desk – “a petition for tomorrow night’s Council Meeting was delivered at council reception this morning at 8.30am, thereby meeting the requirements of 2 working days. Receipt of the petition was signed off by Callum McPherson at the front desk.

The 523 valid signatures thus far were collected within the space of only two weeks and we anticipate the arrival of many more completed forms in the coming days. These will be presented to council in due course. Residents are solidly behind the need to advertise the CEO petition”.

We’ve highlighted the phrase ‘valid signatures’ because organisers did check all names and found that some people who did not reside in Glen Eira had signed. They obviously agreed with the statement and their place of abode was only discovered AFTER they had signed. These names were later removed via the use of a 12 inch ruler and pen, marking a very straight line through these names. CLEARLY THESE CROSSOUTS COULD NOT HAVE BEEN MADE BY INDIVIDUALS FREEHAND. The copies clearly substantiate this.

Paul Burke’s ‘surmising’ of motives, as an excuse for not publishing the number of signatories in the last set of minutes, is thus not only scurrilous, but devious, deliberate and extends far beyond his official capacity. He is not there to editorialise and attempt to denigrate the authenticity of the petitioners and organisers. As come commentators have already written – did Mr Burke also check every single signature on the 6000 plus that was submitted by the Northern Memorial Pool, or the 700 plus signatures from the McKinnon Basketball Association? Again, we note, that Esakoff, Hyams and Lipshutz must go down in history as the only councillors who refused to accept a legitimate petition from constituents.

More importantly, Burke’s failure to answer Penhalluriack’s questions should be censured in the strongest terms. Councillors have every right to ask whatever they deem part of their duty and responsibility. Burke’s failure to answer such questions again reveals exactly what is wrong with the governance of Glen Eira and why the silence of all councillors on such issues is to be denounced.

 

December 14, 2011

A Night Of ‘Two-Up’

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

Jamie Hyams was appointed Mayor tonight with Neil Pilling elected as Deputy Mayor. Following is the sequence of events –

Paul Burke announced that he had not received any apologies although he noted that Oscar Lobo was not present.

Andrew Newton read out the necessary procedures and protocols indicating that if the vote was tied he would toss a coin.

Lipshutz nominated Hyams

Penhalluriack nominated Magee

The vote was Hyams – Lipshutz, Esakoff, Tang and Hyams

The vote for Magee – Penhalluriack, Forge, Pilling and Magee

The vote was 4 to 4. Penhalluriack called for a division. Newton said “No, the vote is four all – Section 8 in the procedure of the Local Law states……(read out the relevant section which basically stated that another poll must take place)…if tied….determined by lot by Chief Executive Officer’. Stated that tossing a coin was ‘the most transparent way’. Penhalluriack said ‘I still call for a division’…Newton replied that ‘there is no provision in the local law’ for a division. Penhalluriack then argued that in common law and many other forms a division is allowed. Newton responded that he’s following the local law and that he ‘doesn’t set the local law, councillors do’.

Called second vote. Same result. Newton explained that he would stand in the middle of chamber and that the first nominated councillor would call either “heads’ or “tails” whilst the coin was in the air. No one would be allowed to touch the coin once it landed. Tossed the coin. Hyams called heads and it came up heads. Applause.

Deputy Mayor – Esakoff nominated Lipshutz. He accepted

Penhalluriack nominated Magee. Magee did not accept.

Tang nominated Pilling. Accepted. Vote 5 to 3. Lipshutz’s votes were Hyams, Esakoff, and himself. Pilling’s votes were: Magee, Tang, Forge, Penhalluriack, and himself.

SPEECHES

LIPSHUTZ: congratulated Hyams. Admired his ‘attention to detail’…’dot every ‘I’ cross every ‘t’….so conscientious you read everything….(only councillor who has read the full annual report)…you devote your attention to council….fair person….(know) council protocol and council policy…bring great strength to the council…..will be a great mayor…..you will be a healer….approach all councillors in a fair ….as did Margaret Esakoff previously….(congratulated Esakoff) for a wonderful year …..in trying circumstances…..which would have beaten many other people….look forward to our year, a year of change, a year of policy, decision making….

ESAKOFF: congratulated Mayor…’very well deserved honour’…’total dedication…. diligence….has been recognised and I have no qualms in handing over the reins…. Your integrity and your professionalism …..will make us (Council) and community proud….clear  understanding of role….policy, governance, procedures and common sense will hold you in good stead….(Can do the job because of) warmth, understanding, empathy…..(for all people)….

TANG: congratulated Hyams and said that circumstances ‘are not befitting a man and councillor of your stature’…conscientious and diligent….those words are understatements….(we’re) better off for having you amongst us…amongst the 9 councillors where would we be….we are enriched by having you amongst our cohort….inclusive councillor….made every effort to consult with all councillors….community (as well)…protocols and issues and taken the time to discuss with each (of us)….(wished him and Pilling success) ‘in what has been a trying year….(Esakoff) has done a superb job in those circumstances….diligent, visible mayor…whilst having to deal with a number of other issues at the town hall….(congratulate) effort she’s made to represent the community in the face of very difficult circumstances….

PILLING: thanked people for support. …’It’s been a trying year….(esakoff) has had a very good year in trying to bring council together….problem tonight….two good candidates….a difficult decision….(Hyams) attention to detail and passion for this council….look forward to working with you….

PENHALLURIACK: congratulated Hyams and said he ‘works beyond the square’….(was an annus horribilus)….(repeated his comment that) when a leopard dies he leaves his spots; when a man dies he leaves his reputation…During the past 12 months I have been accused of bullying. I don’t believe I’m a bully…..(ended with congratulations)

FORGE: congratulated Hyams…’it’s been a very difficult couple of weeks…different candidates’ (but both adding to the) ‘future of Glen Eira’….(Hyams) ‘attention to detail is incredible…wiseness and knowledge regarding how a council should be run….fantastic asset….I look forward to what we discussed…you’re aware of some of my views…I look forward to working with you this year…. (Congratulated Pilling)…’you’re a very gentle quiet person, you’re coming out of yourself….enjoyed working with you over the last 10 months….

MAGEE: ‘City of Glen Eira is in good hands….attention to detail is second to none…(knowledge of LGA had Magee ringing him for advice)….’helped with the right wording (on a motion)…that is the sort of person he is….Pilling is a very fitting deputy mayor….(asked to support Pilling) and ‘without a seond of thought I was happy to do so….fairest, most decent human beings….care for environment is something we can all aspire to…..Esakoff….a year that I would not wish on anyone…(last few terms and experience) I doubt that any new mayor would have handled it with the dignity….compassion and persistence….and ruthlessness when you make a decision (Magee respects this even when Esakoff cuts him short)….we are a good cohort of councillors….I really like the debates that get fiery….(debates)…I enjoy that part ….people getting red in the face….angry…because that’s when the city knows that they’re getting a true decision….as long as that happens…..I will be a very proud councillor…..

HYAMS: Acknowledge directors, MPS (Southwick, Miller) and former councillor Dunstan….Deeply honoured…(thanked colleagues for) trust shown in me by electing me….wasn’t ideal way to get elected….2 quality candidates….Role …is ‘first amongst equals’….beyond that no more power than any other councillor….can’t achieve anything without support of councillor group…working together this council has achieved a lot…..best reflected in the results of the latest Community Satisfaction survey (went through some of the percentages) –‘only 14% said our council needed improvement, whilst 54%’ (were good or excellent)…(itemised lowest rates, highest capital expenditure, service centre excellence, parks are tops)…’this is a tribute to our councillor group…’together create a whole that is far better than the sum of its parts’….’while we may disagree…we do so with respect for each other’s views….all the same aim….best for the community….(talked about Tang and Esakoff and that they) ‘leave rather large shoes to fill…Steven’s grasp of issues….solving problems….tribute…(became barrister today)….Margaret has done nothing short of a fantastic job….in trying circumstances…..dedication….passion for the community….determination to adhere to the principles of good governance….and grace…..have been inspirational….I’ll do my best to emulate (this example)…(On Deputy he voted for Lipshutz because) ‘he brings a lot of leadership to this council….two quality candidates…very pleased to have Cr. Pilling….(we complement each other)….decent man…..

‘Successes…are attributed to our dedicated…(professional staff)…lead by our CEO ….they bring high levels of expertise to our deliberations….appreciate their sound and often canny advice….(shouldn’t) rest on our laurels….we need to strive for continual improvement….rates as low as possible….facilities needed by our community…we need to ensure our community is aware of (services)….(and that community realise they have a) stake and input….challenges (faced include lack of open space; 5 year council plan with community; planning scheme review that will protect amenity whilst accepting)’need to accommodate our ever growing population….economic responsible…Caulfield Racecourse….far better utilised by the public…highlight…opening of our magnificent (GESAC)…looking forward to (Duncan McKinnon pavilion finished, bicycle plan)….”

Thanked family in conclusion, especially grandmother aged 93.

Hyams invited gallery for refreshment but said that Councillors however ‘have another matter that we need to deal with in private’.

 

 

 

 

December 14, 2011

Penhalluriack: Double Standards

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

Item: Right of Reply

Penhalluriack read his ‘right of reply’ (published in the agenda) concerning an earlier request (November 2nd) as to why numerous Officer reports had not been tabled at ordinary council meetings and why Esakoff’s statement had subsequently ‘disassociated’ Council from his statement.

TANG: raised a ‘point of order’. Stated that what Penhalluriack said contains ‘a reference to council’s actions’ and ‘as a member of council’ he wants to ‘correct’ this and also Penhalluriack’s correction of the Mayor, although ‘I do not feel it is my place to do that’. So raised a ‘point of order’ requesting ‘Right of Reply’ on Penhalluriack’s commentary where he would address issues concerning council ‘generally’.

ESAKOFF: ‘Yes you can Cr Tang. Go right ahead’

TANG:  Repeated Penhalluriack’s statement that council has no reason to disassociate itself from anything he had said and quoted the last section. ‘I think that’s a reference to what council’s done…I don’t accept that entirely…..(long servicing councillors) have received a number of the reports that Cr Penhalluriack was referring to…..there is an argument that council (should have them tabled at ordinary meetings) but that argument weighs against every one of us as councillors I don’t think it’s in Cr Penhalluriack’s ability to disassociate himself from that (since as a member of council he’d have to include himself as having breached the local government act)….’if we want a report at an ordinary council meeting we will specify that’…..I am of the belief that there is no requirement….in the Local Government Act…(also went on to say that Penhalluriack’s claim that he hasn’t received any advice from councillors is) ‘clearly a false statement….because I believe….I received a circular….which identified….where these reports went….I thought I received the same circular as every other councillor received.’

COMMENT

There is clearly a double set of standards operating at this council, especially when it comes to Cr Penhalluriack. Cr. Penhalluriack’s Right of Reply was available (for the first time ever) in the agenda papers. This means that every councillor would have had prior notice of what he was about to say. Under the ‘no surprises policy’ the Local Law also states :

“The statement must be made in writing and included in the notice paper for the next ordinary meeting of Council except where the comments referred to in subclause 238(1) have arisen since the printing of the agenda”.

Tang’s response, and Esakoff’s complicity in allowing him to raise both a point of order and a Right of Reply are unconscionable and contravene Council’s own set of laws. It is absolutely clear that there are one set of rules for Penhalluriack and another for the gang. We will expand-

  1. Esakoff is mandated to provide reasons for allowing Tang to raise a point of order and agreeing to it. She did not.
  2. If Tang has a legitimate point of order, then this should have been raised BEFORE Penhalluriack spoke and NOT AFTER – especially since he knew exactly what Penhalluriack was going to say.
  3. The point of order morphed into a ‘Right of Reply’. Why wasn’t Tang’s ‘Right of Reply’ published in the agenda together with Penhalluriack’s? Did Tang, in effect give prior notice as required by the Local Law? If not, then why was he allowed to get away with this tactic? Why did no other councillor and especially the Mayor rule him out of order?
  4. Tang’s statement is an absolute nonsense and designed to not only cloud the issue that Penhalluriack raised but to protect Newton. The facts are clear: Not all requests for reports are tabled in ordinary council meetings – that is what Penhalluriack said. Esakoff confirmed this in her statement when she admitted that reports are often presented in assembly meetings. Tang also confirmed this. Hence Penhalluriack’s statements are not ‘false’, nor ‘incorrect’, but truthful and accurate. Hence his statement that council has no reason to disassociate itself from his statement is also correct and legitimate. What is far from legitimate according to Council’s own idiosyncratic ‘no suprises’ rules, is Tang’s ‘point of order’ and then ‘Right of Reply’. We believe there was absolutely no need for it and surmise that the only motive could have been to defuse (and smear?) Penhalluriack. We also believe that this was an orchestrated tactic given Esakoff’s ruling in allowing such a statement. This entire episode again speaks volumes as to the hypocrisy and double standards operating at Glen Eira.
 

December 13, 2011

Council Meeting: The Bastardry Continues

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

The gallery included many men, women and children from the McKinnon Basketball Association. The following report on the discussion focuses on the decision whether or not to hold the discussion on court allocation in public, or restrict to in camera. It was part of the response to Committee Meeting Minutes on GESAC.

LIPSHUTZ: Gesac is ‘unfortunately behind schedule….(due to) builder’s delay….probably be able to make an opening in February…..basketball courts are pretty much completed….(pool area) will still take some time….(paying) liquidated damages in a large amount…our project managers are on top of every aspect….number of issues where (builders have had to redo work) because we are insisting….that GESAC will be of the highest standard….”

MAGEE: “there’s nobody more disappointed….than myself ….GESAC behind schedule….we were all hoping that GESAC would be open on the 1st December….I’m actually quite comfortable that it’s late….Council has a number of senior engineers working for us on site…..(sometimes they decide that ) what is happening is not good enough…..stop, redesign, pull out….it’s crucially important that we don’t rush GESAC….just quickly patch it up and get it finished….(handed over and then) for the next umpteem years we’re continually trying to patch it….GESAC….in my opinion is the state of the art…..(many basketballers in the gallery) and I can whet your appetite by telling you that the courts are the best that I have ever seen….it is a world class centre, it is made of world class materials…we have to be patient because we have to do it properly….there’s an item of business to be considered later on in camera (12.8) and that’s to do with basketball …..Council is not able to deal with that item in the ordinary council meeting…..that item must be considered….dealt with in camera….I thank you all very much for coming….but unfortunately we can’t talk about the allocation of basketball in the open part of the council meeting….but I can assure you there will be a report…..and a report on the voting…..I would have loved to have been able to do more tonight, but it’s an item for camera and it will stay an item to be considered in camera….

PILLING: ” I thank everyone for coming here tonight….because of confidential nature we have to do this privately….the results of our decisions tonight will be available in council minutes when published ….It’s a bit disappointing I understand but advice is to do things by the letter and certain councillors are resolved to do that….great to see (people) committed and passionate….I’m hopeful it will be a good outcome for the community.

COMMENT: the really sad aspect of this outcome is not merely the disregard for all those people who crammed into the gallery tonight and then left disappointed. But what these comments reveal is that once again, decisions are made behind closed doors (ie. ‘advice’, ‘certain councillors’, ‘resolved’). After all the pronouncements on Cr. Pilling’s blog site, it would have been uplifting to actually have a motion put to the floor that the item be discussed in chamber. By failing to move any motion, and meekly accepting what was obviously decided previously, residents are again left to ponder what has happened to transparency and accountability – although it would not be too hard to guess which councillors might have opposed the removal of ‘confidential status’. Please note, Cr. Lobo was absent. It would therefore have been a very interesting vote – probably 4/4 and Esakoff forced to use her casting vote – again embarrassing to a council that prides itself on being a cosy ‘club’ with no division!

We will report on the other items in the next few days.

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »