GE Council Meeting(s)

Archived Posts from this Category

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.

 

December 9, 2011

Gobbledygook & Dirty Tricks

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

The agenda for Tuesday night’s Council Meeting is a mixture of more gobbledygook plus a few new dirty tricks. We will go through some of these.

Pools Steering Committee Minutes – 1st December 2011.

“The builder’s revised program suggests further delays in relation to the gym and stadium. As these elements are not on the critical path, these works should not delay overall completion of the works. Unfortunately, officers are aware of other works that are not tracking as per the revised program. These delays (primarily in the pool hall) have the potential to further delay works. Officers have advised the builders of their concerns.”

COMMENT: If the gym and stadium are not on the ‘critical path’ does this mean that there are more serious problems with construction that have lead to the delay?

Under the heading Cash Flow – nothing, zilch, a big zero!

Budget/Variations

“There are a number of additional deductions under the contract. A quantity surveyor is currently valuing these works. Council continues to levy liquated (sic) damages.”

COMMENT: ‘additional deductions’ is a fascinating phrase. We suggest that what this is really referring to is that the original GESAC design is being cut back because of the cash flow crisis. Of course this will be trumpeted as GESAC coming in even further ‘under budget’. But residents should know what corners are being cut and what this suggests about the final quality of the building and facilities.

Critical Issues

The next paragraph is unintelligible and we are continually astounded at how such nonsense can be released into the public domain – “There are a number of active critical issues that officers continue to manage (some of which confidential has they relate to contractual matters). Critical issues include planning for handover of the facility from the builder, commissioning and managing delays in the program.”

COMMENT: Residents may as well forget January as the opening of the site. Again, the phasing is sublime in its attempts to camouflage the truth – “This would mean the facility would not open to the community until after the end of January”. ‘After the end of January – can only mean February, maybe even March’. But it sure sounds better to say ‘January’ rather than the later months! And no further meetings until ‘some time in January’!

DIRTY TRICKS

For the first time EVER a councillor’s ‘Right of Reply’ is published in the agenda items, rather than after it has been delivered at council meeting and then appears in the Minutes of that meeting. We can only speculate as to the thinking behind such a new ‘initiative’. Is this meant to ensure that Penhalluriack sticks 100% to the published script? That if he diverges by one single word, then Hyams and his cohorts will leap to their feet and declare a point of order?

Hyams is also very, very busy again requesting amendments to various previous minutes according to the Records of Assembly.

One other point we’ve noticed is that on all previous occasions when ‘legal advice’ and OH & S matters were discussed BOTH Penhalluriack and Newton left the room. (See 15th November for example). However, the minutes of 22nd November (after Newton has got his reappointment!) there is no mention of Newton departing even though the items cited were: “”Under s89(2)(a) ‘Personnel” of the Local Government Act 1989 re OH &S compliance” and “under to (sic) s89(2)(f) ‘Legal advice”, and (h) “may prejudice the Council or any person” regarding OHS legal advice.”

MURRAY RD DEVELOPMENT

This application is for a 4 storey building comprising 31units. Officers recommend permit for 30 units. What caught our eye again was this sentence: “In principle, there are a number of factors which make this site appropriate for medium density development at the scale proposed:

  • It is located within close proximity to the Hawthorn Road tram route and shops;
  • It has abuttal to a tall 3 storey commercial building to the north and a single storey commercial building to the east (both fronting onto Hawthorn Road);
  • it has abuttal to two storey flats to the east”

COMMENT: When did a 30 unit development suddenly become ‘medium density’? Why the use of the word ‘tall’ in ‘3 storey commercial building’. Three storeys is three storeys surely? But what is most laughable is the logic of the argument – because of the existence of a 3 storey building and a 2 storey building then this seemingly justifies the granting of a permit for a 4 storey building! A small paragraph then follows – “Whilst the proposed development will be taller and more robust in its build form than adjoining existing development, it is considered that it represents what policy expects in terms of reasonable change to the character of this street being within a Housing Diversity Area”. We congratulate the planning department for its expertise in the use of euphemism and spin and simply wonder where in the planning scheme does the policy state its ‘expectations’ as to medium density meaning 30 units on one lot?

Audit Committee Minutes – 27th November 2011

“The Committee noted the Auditor-General’s issuing of a high risk rating for Council based on a low liquidity ration as at 30 June 2011. Officers confirmed that the overall high risk rating was due to the liquidity ration of 0.95. The CFO stated that the monthly finance report to Council now included an additional liquidity section. The CFO also confirmed that Council should continue with all planned operating and capital expenditure, but should avoid any unplanned expenditure proposals. He said that delaying any planned capital expenditures such as the roads program or the warm season grasses program may have a negative impact on future renewal costs. The Chairman requested that Councillors be made aware, particularly at the strategy workshop, of the spending impact on the liquidity ratio. He also requested close monitoring of Council’s liquidity position and asked the CFO to report back at the next Audit Committee meeting”.

COMMENT: Another Machiavellian strategy by the CFO (Chief Financial Officer)? It’s okay to spend an unbudgeted for million on extending the car park at GESAC and relocating the playground, but not okay to delay roads and sporting ovals? Again, the logic is mind boggling, especially when you consider that many of these roads are repaved yearly! All in all, we suspect that this is a not so subtle warning to councillors to watch their “p’s and q’s” and not to interfere with the grand plans laid out by Messrs Newton and co – for example such as the recent funding of Take a Break and the attempt by Cr. Magee to have public toilets installed in Bentleigh. The message seems clear – it states “butt out councillors and let us continue as we will”!!!!

 

November 30, 2011

Special Council Meeting: Mayoral Race

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

Page 17 of today’s Moorabbin Leader and yesterday’s Caulfield Leader contain the notice of a Special Council Meeting set down for December 14th, at 7pm. The business to be transacted is the election of the Mayor and Deputy Mayor.

 

 

November 25, 2011

GESAC: ‘Information’ or Hard Sell?

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

The minutes of 22nd November at long, long last, contained a measly two and a half page ‘report’ on GESAC. We had been promised a full report and have previously commented on the lack of detail contained in this Pools Steering Committee Meeting minutes. We therefore hoped against hope that at the actual Council Meeting Lipshutz might enlighten the community further as to the financial state of affairs, the basketball fiasco, the opening dates, and a myriad of other issues. Here’s a summary of what he said.

LIPSHUTZ: Stated that the committee meets monthly and last meeting was 3rd November and ‘a number of matters were discussed…..the building completion program….originally slated to finish in mid September (never realistic) aiming for mid December…’and we until quite recently been told ….that was a very achievable date….builder has run into a number of problems…missed construction…we have…two fantastic pool managers….and they have been on the ball throughout this whole program….they have required the builder to rectify…(issues of labour and shortages of materials which means the pool won’t open in December)….we believe….late January or February….far better to have it done properly (than) a rushed job’……’no fault at all on our project managers, where the fault lies is….with the builder. (Council has done everything it can including) ‘liquidated damages…and the builder clearly does not wish to pay those damages (but it’s out of his hands)…..there are positives….the pool is progressing very well….water slide now constructed….(nearly 3000 members)…demonstrates there are people who want to go there and be members….(Pool has plenty of) fantastic programs – (sprint pool – ‘one of the best in Australia’; ‘lessons available 7 days a week’; ….small classes….continuous learning…communication feedback…Little Buccaneers….learn to swim classes…academy of swimming….dolphins for age 7 to 10….seniors ….special needs….’pool has been designed to ensure that people with disabilities can enter the pool’….’private lessons…school programs…birthday parties….leisure centre…..play, cannons, …adult programs…basketball stadium ‘will be used for a number of organisations’….competitive basketball for young kids….soccer….casual hire….netball….mornings and evenings….partnership with Marriot support services….training and competition….gymnasium ‘told at outset that whatever we build’ was going to be ‘too small’….’because gymnasiums attract people’…

TANG: point of order about speaking time.

ESAKOFF: asked for mover for extension of time. Moved Pilling and seconded Hyams. ‘Another 3 minutes’. Carried unanimously.

LIPSHUTZ: ‘gymnausium will have (several programs) nutrition’…boxing…body balance…body pump…yoga…tai chi….’developed for gesac’….ELDERLY…’warming pool is one of the best in Australia and has been designed that way’…physios, ….massage…..young families…with children a crèche…..’those are the things that we have….developed’….’disappointing that (it won’t be open) in December…..everyone has been pressing the builder….despite all that there is no possibility of opening in December….

MAGEE: Said he would have liked it to be open in November or December but ‘I’m just as happy for it to be built properly…..it wouldn’t be fair to try and rush it….this acquatic centre will be with us for the next 100 years….(and in a few years find out that things are wrong with it)…because someone rushed it…if it takes an extra month….I’m more than happy to put up with…knowing that the quality that we expect….(Went on to suggest two possible names for the slides – Anaconda, & Little Worm).

 

November 23, 2011

Under The ‘Big Top’ – Again!

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

URGENT BUSINESS

ESAKOFF: Asked that a ‘matter in relation to OH & S be considered. I would like to move that’. Hyams seconded.

Motion carried unanimously

Esakoff: ‘I would like to move a motion that I….read a statement’ Started to read the statement  when Tang interrupted asking for her to explain what the motion was in relation to. Esakoff replied ‘correcting the record’. Tang then asked her to read out the motion. ‘My motion is to be able to read my statement….correction of record’.

Tang: asked Hyams ‘whether he would like to move a motion’

HYAMS: ‘Council authorise the mayor to read out a statement relating to OH & S compliance and allowing the record to be corrected’.

Tang again interrupted saying that Hyams’ motion shouldn’t replace Esakoff’s motion. Asked whether Hyams would withdraw his motion because Esakoff’s was first.

ESAKOFF: ‘I’m not sure I heard anything new in your motion….but feel free’. Hyams said that he wasn’t sure what Esakoff’s motion was. She repeated to ‘read a statement to correct the record in relation to OH& S compliance’. Burke then whispered in Esakoff’s ear and she asked for a seconder to the motion. More confusion reigned with Esakoff saying that she wants to read the statement and ‘I’m getting conflicting advice here’. More whisperings! Hyams again volunteered that Esakoff has to speak to the motion first and then Hyams would speak to the motion.

Esakoff then moved the motion to accept this as ‘urgent business’. Hyams again had to explain that Esakoff had to first move the motion about whether council would allow her to read the statement ‘you’re allowed to read the statement if the motion is passed’.

ESAKOFF: ‘then a vote on the request to read the statement?’

Motion was finally put and carried unanimously. Esakoff started to read the statement. Said that she wanted to ‘on behalf of council’ to correct the ‘assertions’ made by Penhalluriack at the last council meeting. She said that Penhalluriack had stated ‘that council officers had failed to table’ requests for reports at council meetings. ‘This statement is not true and on behalf of Council I apologise to the CEO….for these assertions being made without any supporting evidence….(the reports that Penhalluriack listed were) either ‘tabled at council meetings or provided to councillors’…..(further that there is no requirement that such reports have to go to council meetings) ‘as opposed to councillors or an assembly of councillors’.

 

November 22, 2011

Council Meeting: Plummeting to New Depths of Censorship

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

Tonight’s council meeting witnessed Lipshutz, Hyams and Esakoff plummet to new depths of political bastardry – ably assisted by Paul Burke.

PETITION #1:

Burke announced that there was one petition from ’79 signatories’  relating to the concerns of business and residents about GESAC and parking. We note that this petition was read out quite clearly and at normal speed. Moved to accept by Hyams and seconded by Tang. Pilling spoke about the “hasty’ implementation of the extended car park and that now there was the need to work towards some resolution of the issues ‘raised by residents’. Magee stated that he’d met with residents of Gardiner’s Rd. Claimed that there were ‘certainly some issues of misinformation’ going around ….’cutting out nature strips, parking all day’…’light shining into houses’….’number of cars that are likely to be in the car park’…’we talked about crossovers between one park and the other’….’there is still a lot of confusion….we are in the process of putting together a document….that covers and explains’ (all these issues)….

HYAMS: part of the problem expressed in that petition is that the residents of Gardiner’s Rd. will be parked out ….(on the other hand not enough car parking for GESAC….need to) ‘strike a balance’….

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

PETITION #2

BURKE: Read out the second petition incredibly quickly BUT NEGLECTED TO MENTION THE NUMBER OF SIGNATURES (523) AND FURTHER STATED: ‘we have been unable to ascertain’ (the validity) ‘of the signatures Madam Mayor’. Pilling moved to accept, Forge seconded.

PILLING: ‘quite a sensitive issue….ceo has been reappointed….even though people may have different opinions…..(should be) acknowledged by the council….(Council should be) …..actually big enough to take criticisms….and also constructive criticisms….’

FORGE: ‘Nothing to add’

HYAMS:’I just want to say that ….assumptions inherent in the wording of that petition (which people signed) which isn’t necessarily true’

PILLING: reiterated that the ceo’s contract has been renewed.

Esakoff put the motion. In favour – Magee, Pilling, Forge, Tang

AGAINST: Lipshutz, Hyams, Esakoff

MOTION CARRIED

COMMENTS: We find it astounding that any councillor could vote against the tabling and acceptance of a petition. Residents have every right to express a view and to call upon council to listen to those views – whether they be popular or unpopular. In their attempt to deny residents this right we maintain that Lipshutz, Hyams and Esakoff have clearly voted against the most basic and fundamental rights of residents and revealed to all their total disrespect to the 523 residents who signed the petition. Shame on them all!

Both Lobo and Penhalluriack were apologies for this meeting. We will report on the rest of the circus in the coming days.

 

November 7, 2011

More Farce?

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

We have to again query the interpretations of Council’s meeting procedures as evidenced in last Wednesday’s Council Meeting. Before we begin, this extract from the Port Phillip Local Law is very pertinent:

Where a situation has not been provided for in this Local Law, the Council or special committee may decide the matter by resolution.

In Glen Eira the exact reverse happens time and time again. The argument invariably goes that if something is NOT INCLUDED in the Local Law Meeting Procedures, then it is NOT PERMITTED. Nothing could be further from the truth!

The failure to include any mention of rescission, dissent, and numerous other democratic protocols in our rules and regulations does not mean that they are illegal or are incapable of being exercised during a council meeting. Last council meeting saw how such omissions were used to rule against an attempt to dissent from the chair by Penhalluriack. During his ‘right of reply’ (which we’ve posted earlier) Penhalluriack was ruled out of order by Esakoff on the grounds that his statements were irrelevant. The sequence of events went like this:

ESAKOFF: Following Hyams interjection about relevance Esakoff stated “I uphold that point of order”. She asked Penhalluriack to take his seat.

PENHALLURIACK:”I ask you to test your resolution by a vote of council”

ESAKOFF: “I’m sorry”? (Said in a very quizzical tone of voice)”No that’s my ruling”….

PENHALLURIACK:  Asked that the ruling be ‘tested’ by council

ESAKOFF: Stated that Penhalluriack had already ‘corrected the record’ and ‘I think that’s been done sufficiently”

PENHALLURIACK:  Said that all organisations have the ability to challenge rulings of chairpersons. “I am now challenging the chair”

ESAKOFF: “That is my ruling”

We note:

  • Esakoff’s ruling is totally distinct from the right of a councillor to challenge such a ruling
  • The failure to include such provision in the local law DOES NOT MEAN that the ability to dissent from the chair is not available. Absence of something is not denial.
  • Penhalluriack admittedly needed to present a formal motion. However his intent was clear, legal, and should have been acted upon by Esakoff.

By way of contrast  we include below the relevant sections from both the Kingston and Bayside Meeting Procedures.

Dissent From Chair’s Ruling

(1) A Councillor may move that the meeting disagree with the Chair’s ruling on a point of order, by moving:

“That the Chair’s ruling [setting out that ruling or part of that ruling] be dissented from”.

(2) When a motion in accordance with this clause is moved and seconded:

(a) the Chair must leave the chair and any Deputy Mayor must chair the meeting; or if there is no Deputy Mayor

(b) the Chair must leave the chair after the meeting has elected a temporary Chair.

(3) The Deputy Mayor or the temporary Chair must invite the mover to state the reasons for his or her dissent and the Chair may
then reply.

(4) The Deputy Mayor or the temporary Chair must put the motion in the following form:

“That the Chair’s ruling be dissented from.”

(5) If the vote is in the negative, the Chair resumes the chair and the meeting proceeds.

(6) If the vote is in the affirmative, the Chair must then resume the chair, reverse or vary (as the case may be) his or her
previous ruling and proceed.

(7) The defeat of the Chair’s ruling is in no way a motion of censure or nonconfidence in the Chair, and should not be so regarded by the meeting.

KINGSTON

Dissenting from the Chairperson’s Ruling

36. (1) When the Chairperson makes a ruling during a meeting a member may move a motion to the effect that the meeting dissent from the Chairperson’s ruling.

(2) When a motion of dissent is moved and is seconded the following procedures must be followed:

(a) the Chairperson asks the mover, then the seconder, to speak to their motion and the matter is then further debated as required. The matter is put to the vote and the Chairperson announces the result; and

(b) the Chairperson is bound by the result of the motion of dissent – if it is passed then his or her previous ruling is changed so that it conforms to the motion of dissent, if it is defeated then his or her previous ruling stands.

(3) The defeat of the Chairperson’s ruling is not a vote of no-confidence in the Chairperson and must not be so regarded by the meeting.

Finally, mention should also be made of the fact that Esakoff again declared that she has ‘Urgent Business’ that needs to go in camera. The relevant sections of the Act were cited, BUT NO MOTION PUT OR PASSED. Hyams only at the close of the meeting corrected this little error and a motion was belatedly put and passed.

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »