GE Council Meeting(s)

Archived Posts from this Category

June 3, 2011

Agenda Items: Heritage, Community Plan & That ‘Inverse Correlation’

Posted by gleneira under GE Council Meeting(s)
[5] Comments

The number of notifications versus the number of objections maintains the current trend of fewer notifications garnering the greatest number of objections!

Location	Notifications	Objections	Recommendation
Station Ave., McKinnon (7 double storeys)	8 properties 20 notices	10 objections	Permit
Kooyong Rd., Elsternwick (Medical centre)	10 properties 36 notices	67 objections 1 support letter	Permit
Duncan McKinnon Reserve (pavilion/grandstand construction)	104 properties 186 notices	2 objections	Permit

Item 9.4 Heritage Overlay (Hawthorn Rd.)

Officers’ recommendation was to “abandon(s) Amendment C83 (which seeks to remove the heritage overlay)”, reason being – “The lack of technical heritage justification to proceed with the amendment.”

Readers will remember that this is the Frank Lloyd Wright influenced property and that Jack Esakoff is owner of one of the properties in the proposal. It will be incredibly interesting to note how Lipshutz, Tang, Hyams and Pilling vote on this one, given their previous support of removing all 3 properties from Heritage listings. Of course the real stumbling block in this case is the Department’s findings –

“The authorisation to prepare the amendment is not an indication of whether or not the amendment will ultimately be supported.

The Department is concerned with the lack of strategic justification provided in support of the amendment. I encourage Council to provide further justification to support the amendment”.

QUESTION: What does this say about the original recommendation?

Item 9.6 – Strategic Plan (alias Community Plan)

This item calls for council to hear submissions. We wish to point out the following anomaly:

Any alteration to a budget such as happened at the recent Special Council Meeting with the carried Amendment, must logically impact on the Strategic Resource Plan. Adjustments must be made to both the budget and the plan to account for the drop in rates and the halving of proposed regrassing of ovals. Yet, Council is now accepting submissions on something that no longer exists!! This is a total farce. The new version of the Plan and budget have not been made public – yet councillors will decide on a new version without public comment and without ratepayers even sighting this new version!! Is this what is called ‘good governance’?

Here’s one paragraph from the single submission in regards to open space: The councils draft Community Plan seems to be all about providing infrastructure development for the future. More people, more building, roads, concrete paths and artificial sports grounds. As the demographics show Glen Eira population is rising and will continue to rise, and so willthe needs of these residents to enjoy our parks and gardens.

Other items of interest, in particular Newton’s response to Penhalluriack on the issue of ‘Notice of Motion’ will be addressed in the next post.

May 20, 2011

More Weasel Words?

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

The following comments are taken directly from the minutes of the last council meeting and refer to Magee’s statement (cited in an earlier post) about the farce that occurred when Penhalluriack attempted to request a report. Both Tang and Hyams responded to Magee’s comments.

11.2 Right of reply

Cr Tang: “I’d like to exercise a right of reply in response to comments made by Cr Magee at this meeting at Item 11.1 Requests for Reports. Cr Magee has suggested that once Cr Penhalluriack opens his mouth he is expected to go through a rigmarole. I believe by direct implication the rigmarole he was referring to was the application of the Local Laws. I believe the direct implication is that other Councillors are not subject to the same application of the Local Laws. I distinctly recall being put through the same rigmarole last week when I tried to move an amendment to the budget as advertised. And at other times when we have tried to settle a motion where not all Councillors were in the same position of agreement nor was it clear that there was a majority of Councillors in agreement that would support any particular motion and in doing that it’s a bit messy but Councillors have to be able to move amendments because they should be able to amend something that is on the floor. Otherwise motions will come that no majority of Councillors are in support of. Motions will come where there are two Councillors on one side two Councillors on another side two Councillors in the middle and two Councillor who don’t know what is going on and one Councillor who is not there. Without the application of the Local Law you’ll have no consistency. You’ll have the Chair dictating which motion they’ll accept and you’ll have no objective assessment as to whether the Chair was being fair in that application. So I think the implication that Cr Magee clearly made was against each and every one of us Councillors in trying to apply the Local Law to Cr Penhalluriack but not applying it to any other Councillor.”

Cr Hyams: “I would also like to exercise a right of reply if I may. To the same comments that were made by Cr Magee. I agree with Cr Tang that the import of Cr Magee’s comments were that somehow the Local Law is being applied unfairly to some Councillors whereas not others whereas I suspect what is actually happening is that those of us who work within the Local Law and understand the Local Law find it a lot less frustrating than those of us who don’t. And I think that if Councillors look back on the way things have worked around here, each Councillor has at times been pulled up for going outside the Local Law. And I also think that when Councillors are finding their ways frustrated other Councillors who have actually tried to assist those Councillors in finding a way to do what they want to within the Local Law.”

May 19, 2011

From 14 to 7: What’s the Real Stor(e)y?

Posted by gleneira under GE Council Meeting(s), GE Planning
[7] Comments

Tuesday night’s council meeting resolved that the application for the 14 storey development in Glen Huntly Rd. be reduced from 14 storeys and over 100 units to 7 storeys and 69 units. The resolution also included a rider that no residential car parking permits be on offer. The vote was passed on the casting vote of Esakoff.

Two conflicts of interest by Newton (lives close by) and by Magee (put in an offer on a property in the vicinity). Here’s what happened.

Motion moved by Hyams/Tang

ITEM 9.1 – GLEN HUNTLY RD.

HYAMS: started off by saying that there would definitely be development on this site but the question for council was to decide what kind of development -‘how big’….’we make this decision in the shadow of’ the 10 storey development close by. ‘There is a difference between that one and this one’….’this recommendation deals with some of the concerns raised by the objectors’. In terms of car parking ‘no resident will get a permit’ ….’also concern about cars driving in and out ……one of the conditions is that the laneway will be doubled’ (in width)…’ further increased setback on McCrombie Rd’. The difference between this one and the earlier 10 storey application is ‘it didn’t back straight onto houses….it backed onto the church….this application goes straight onto the neighbours….and I think it’s probably a bit too much to ask those neighbours …..to expect to put up with a ten storey building right on their doorstep….obviously we do have to allow a development here…..for those reasons hope we allow a smaller development ‘.

TANG: said that he ‘needed to declare at the outset that I am grudgingly supporting a 7 storey development’ since ‘there is no grounds for refusal’ on this application….’I don’t support the application for 14 storeys’, nor the officers’ recommendations for 10 storeys and he foreshadowed that ‘if two more councillors indicate support for refusal’ he would move that motion. Tang then declared that ‘it is actually too small a proposal and what some councillors would like to see is a large 10 storey building’ or even 14 storey’. ‘In this instance there is no buffer to the residential area and thus I can’t see a 14 storey proposal or even a 10 storey proposal….fitting in to this urban context’. …’emerging character was going to be of a high density but was never going to be…. 10 or 14 storeys….that’s the way I read the Elsternwick Urban Village….so on those grounds I will grudgingly support the 7 storey proposal at this stage, but if two councillors’ indicate their opposition then he’ll move the motion to refuse.

PILLING: ‘I am supporting the motion as printed……I think this is a sensible, reasonable option…(there’s been a decrease in dwellings)…’it is close to public transport; it ticks all the boxes in that regard’. The VCAT decision is ‘the reality of what we’re dealing with’ and officers have ‘balanced’ all the concerns. He stated he’d vote against this alternative recommendation and praised the officers because ‘they’ve got it right’.

FORGE: ‘This area is ripe for development; it’s the gateway to Glen Eira…this is a special area which can take large development….amply serviced by public transport…..good traffic flow (stated she was ‘down there’ and there were 3 or 4 cars in side streets. Also stated that taking 4 storeys off the middle part is less effective than taking four storeys off the top and ‘I support a ten storey building’.

PENHALLURIACK: ‘I agree this is the gateway to Elsternwick….a happy mix of some beautiful old Victorian houses, narrow streets’, schools, and this area is zoned Business 1. ‘The developer has made adequate provision for car parking…I would support the original application for 14 storeys’.

COMMENT FROM GALLERY: ‘Would you like to live next to it?’

PENHALLURIACK: ‘I will reluctantly support 10 storeys’ but agreeing with Forge ‘not if it’s going to be a huge reduction in the number of residents’…..’this is a Business 1 Zone….and unfortunately if you happen to live close …..you have to accept that this is a Business 1 zone….it would be nice if there was a transition introduced in our Planning Scheme. There is not. You go straight …..the narrow line goes from big to little ….I have been speaking for a long time about transition zones because I believe that is essential’. He would vote against the motion.

ESAKOFF: Stated she was concerned about the ‘impact’ on McCrombie St. Referred to the near by development where ‘council supported 8 storeys which went onto VCAT which supported 10’….’that development didn’t have the same interface as this one….the ten storey (of earlier proposal) didn’t immediately abut McCrombie St…..I believe there needs to be some discretion while remembering that Elsternwick is an Urban Village ….where higher density is and will occur…..while Council continues to have input, we can and will (ensure) that impact is kept to a minimum….even though they sit in (urban village or housing diversity area)’. ‘The very usual difficult balancing act that we are dealt’. Doesn’t support 10 stoerys and believes that a more appropriate solution is 7 storeys.

HYAMS: ‘I saw some disbelief on the faces of the gallery when they were told that McCombie st is a quiet street….the street itself is fairly quiet’ but trying to turn into GlenHuntly Rd. Hayms stated it took him ‘a number of minutes’ ….’I can imagine in peak hour’ what it’s like…..(the 10 storey) ‘was a far larger block’…’our urban villages policy divides the Elsternwick area into precincts…..(this is precinct 2)….’one of the conditions …..(and it’s old and superceded and discretionary), ‘but one of …..development to the west of the railway line should be no higher than the terrace properties on the South side of Glen Huntly Rd’. That’s one of our policies…..’When you add them all together they don’t (sometimes) complement each other…so it’s a matter of adding them up’. ‘Bearing in mind that that’s part of our policy having a 14 storey building …..is too much of a stretch (but 7 storeys is okay).

VOTE WAS DRAWN – ESAKOFF USED HER CASTING VOTE TO PASS THE MOTION

May 18, 2011

Welcome To The Circus!

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

Please forgive this very long report on tonight’s council meeting. We’ve only covered a few of the agenda items, but will report on the rest in the next few days.

ITEM 9.8 – Newton’s ‘Report’

Hyams/Pilling moved motion to note report.

HYAMS: ‘I don’t have much to say on this. The CEO was asked to give a rport on his meetings with the MRC and he has done so’.

PILLING: did not say anything.

PENHALLURIACK: ‘I’m disappointed in this report’….(Penhalluriack then read out the paragraph about the meetings with MPs and ‘others’)….asked whether Newton had actually attended those meetings. Newton replied ‘Madam Mayor, I didn’t’. Penhalluriack then said that since he’s written the paragraph, ‘then presumably somebody did otherwise you wouldn’t have it in the report’….

Paul Burke then intervened with “I may be able to assist your Worship. I understand that you attended those meetings Cr. Penhalluriack’. Penhalluriack asked that Burke claify this which Burke claimed he couldn’t. Penhalluriack then went on to say that he did attend a meeting and Cr. Forge provided the minutes of that meeting back to council. He went on to say that ‘there is an olligation on council to keep detailed records under the Public Records Act’. Quoted Section 13 of the Act….’and I am frankly disappointed that we get in this report a lot of things that we didn’t ask for…..we don’t get who attended, what was on the agenda, and any decisions that were made’….’I’m not happy with this report’.

FORGE: ‘Yes, I have concerns too about the matter of detail and I support Cr. Penhalluriack’s observatiions’.

HYAMS: ‘I didn’t find the paragraph that Cr. Penhalluriack referred to (unclear)…because it said quite clearly that no officer attended (so it could only be councillors)…and I certainly didn’t attend any of these meetings…Cr. Penhalluriack is right that we have to keep detiled records but it doesn’t necessarily mean….detailed records in the agenda….I wouldn’t like to carry them, but some bodies might like to…There was also the comment that there was no record of (meetings attended, but there is) chronological order in paragraph 5….so I’m happy with this report.

MOTION CARRIED: Against Penhalluriack and Forge. For the motion – Hyams, Pilling, Tang, Magee, Esakoff.

REQUEST FOR REPORTS

TANG: ‘council prepare a report detailing the costs and feasibility of reinstalling the mulch facility …..at another site in GlenEeira. The report should consider the recommendations of the Health assessment’ team. Claimed he was only ‘testing the water’ since he understands that councillors made a decision to remove the facility but now there’s been ‘public discord’ emails, phone calls and newspapers. He is ‘interested to see whether all options are exhausted before close the door’. He understands that some councillors have got strong views about all this such as where the facility was placed and whether it could be operated from a different location. ‘testing the water to see if councillors will open their minds to other options…..(and if this motion is defeated then it’s clear that council won’t be providing this facility from anywhere in Glen Eira).

HYAMS: ‘My concern….wasn’t the site but the dangers of handling it….so I wouldn’t necessarily want to see it at any other site but (since there are a couple of councillors absent) ‘it’s been a bone of contention so I’m happy to (support the request for a report) and see what comes back’ …’but I don’t think I’ll change my mind’.

PILLING: Stated that he did ask if there was anywhere else for the facility to go

FORGE: reminded councillors that she and Magee raised a number of issues apart from legionnaires and the dangers that the facility contained.

PENHALLURIACK: Stated that people are obviously concerned when they go to the mulch facility but the signs indicate that ‘they’ve been denied a free service’. Said he could understand people’s concern, but he is also concerned that ‘the Leader is running a campaign’ because the mulch bin is still sitting there. ‘The wording of the motion which was passed is very straight forward. Officers are under obligation to listen to (councillors decisions) resolutions and do it expeditiously. The wording says that council removes the facility….AND it no longer provides this free service…..I’m reasonably competent in English …..the building is a prefabricated building ….and they could be stored almost anywhere….It’s simple English….This bin itself was badly designed right from the start…..it’s designed to allow the mulch to be pushed in….a bottle neck at the far end…..(explained how it could be better designed. ‘Standards Association says the mulch should be pasteurised….it is not pasteurised…..(then unless it is pasteurised) you cannot put this facility anywhere in Glen Eira. Spoke about insurance companies and whether they know about the dealing with a dangerous product and the same with Glen Eira college. Job is to protect the community. ‘I’m not prepared to do it’ – ie. take the risk.

TANG: ‘would be shocked’ if they didn’t know about the risk. Council had spoken with principal of college. Insurance would have an appraisal, so they also know. ‘I encouraged Penhalluriack to bring the issue forward….would be good to implement every one of those recommendations…..some councillors as concerned about the mulch service as concerned about where it is located…there is very strong feeling….our duty to investigate whether there are optiions…..If there aren’t I will let the issue lie….

MOTION CARRIED: Against – Penahalluriack: FOR: Esakoff, Tang, Hyams, Pilling, Magee, Forge

COUNCILLOR QUESTIONS

PENHALLURIACK: ‘i’ve given notice of a motion concerning a footpath down the western side of Queen’s Avenue. The matter is not urgent (but he was told the criteria for an ‘urgent’ motion was that it had to have happened after the agenda was published)…’It seems in Glen Eira that whatever does or does not go in the agenda is the sole responsibility of the Chief Executive Officer….There is no other way for me to get discussion on my motion….my question is Why doesn’t Glen Eira have a provision for councillors’ motions on notice, so if a seconder can be found…(important issues can be discussed)?

ESAKOFF: ‘Who are you directing the question to?’

PENHALLURIACK: ‘To you madam Mayor’

Esakoff started to reply when Hyams interjected with a point of procedure. That questions to councillors had to be given to that councillor prior to the meeting, and that in the current situation he ‘didn’t want to set a preceent’. Burke then said that ‘the matter was considered in the Local Law Process ….and Council took a view that it was satisfied with the process as (it stood).

PENHALLURIACK: ‘how can I get this matter debated’ if I can’t move a motion of notice?

BURKE: ‘you have 8 other colleagues…seek their support. The Local Law will allow you to do so….

TANG: ‘I’ll take lilberty and put a question to Mr. Burke (trying to help Penhalluriack)….would Cr. Penhalluriack be able to have this discussed if he were to move a request for a report….?

BURKE: ‘Yes’

PENHALLURIACK: ‘I take umbrage at that response. he suggests I get all 9 councillors together (even when 9 councillors are together) ‘I can’t get a motion because our CEO controls the agenda ….I can ask for a report and a report will come back to us ….(but how do I get the Local Law changed)

BURKE: Requests for reports are a ‘catalyst’ for all sorts of’ things, including what you’re seeking.

PENAHLLURIACK: Tried to ask for a report on the agenda item

ESAKOFF: ‘It’s too late’

HYAMS: Moved a procedural motion that would allow Penhalluriack to request a report. Pilling seconded.

TANG:’ There’s no such thing as a procedural motion….I’ll just move that ‘council reopen discussion of 11.2’

ESAKOFF: 11.1. Hyams accepted the amendment

Vote on amendment – carried unanimously

ESAKOFF: ‘We’re back to 11.1. Cr Penhalluriack’

PENAHALLURIACK: ‘How circumlocutous can we possible get! …..Can councillors please provide a report to councillors on why Glen Eira doesn’t have a provision for councillors to have a motion on notice….. Tang seconded.

TANG: ‘just hope that Cr. Penhalluriack remembers that we helped him out on getting these things…’

PILLING asked for a repeat of the request for a report.
Penhalluriack re-read the motion – why glen Eira doesn’t have a provision ….so that a seconder can be found and that matters of importance can be debated.’ Pilling then suggested changes to the request for a report, referring to the Local Law and the necessity to change that. Penahlluriack didn’t want the word ‘suggestion’ in Pilling’s rephrasing. He wanted to change the word ‘suggestions’ to ‘draft’. Burke then again said: ‘that may give officers a deal of angst’ since you’re asking for a report that means that your wording will change , so ‘officers are actually drafting what you want’. Penhalluriack then seconded Tang’s motion! Tang then tried to clarify.’ Cr Penahlluriack has moved a motion, I seconded that motion and Cr. Pilling has moved an amendment. Cr. Penhalluriack has suggested that he is prepared to’ accept the amendment , so he’s withdrawing his motion and moving the motion ‘as read by Pilling’.

ESAKOFF: asked Penhalluriack and Tang whether they supported the amended motion. Both agreed.

MAGEE; ‘I’ve been to a lot of meetings in my life …every time Cr. Penhalluriack tries to do something….road blocking. The last 5 minuytes have been an absolute disgrace. (gallery clapped) …looking after 100 million dollar business should be informed and I think…..should be sacked’.

HYAMS: ‘at lot more of us would be sacked if we tried to ignore our local law rather than stick with it ….(interjection from the gallery about ‘ordinary business’) ‘I understand Mr. dunstan that you were a very ordinary councillor so I understand why you’d want ordinary business’

TANG: a question to Magee. ‘if we didn’t apply the local laws consistently the alternative would be to leave all the power in the hands of the chair and allow the chair to act at their discretion…accept or reject motions…..

MAGEE: ‘we’re all very aware from the first word of Cr. Penhalluriack (what he wanted) ‘and all we did was play tennis with it’

TANG; ‘I don’t think Cr. Magee has answered my question’.

MAGEE: ‘I think we all knew where Cr. Penhalluriack was going ….and all we did was play around with it. …we should have gone straight to the point…..

PILLING: ‘it was confusing….I was trying to get what Cr. Penhalluriack wanted

PENHALLURIACK: I get pissed off as well…..I’m happy for the motion as it stands …”

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

May 2, 2011

What Petty & Devious Games We Play!!!!

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

The minutes for last Wednesday’s Council Meeting are now up. We wish to direct readers’ attention to the Right of Reply by Penhalluriack, and the verbal response provided a little later by Newton to Penhalluriack’s Request for a Report. Two things in particular stand out

Newton’s little speech is immaculately punctuated
Penhalluriack’s Right of Reply is almost unintelligible BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF ADEQUATE PUNCTUATION.

Now we find it impossible to believe that if Newton’s words can be sensibly recorded, that the same privilege should not be extended to Cr. Penhalluriack. If two people typed up and edited these minutes, then person Number 1 would definitely pass his primary school. Person Number 2 is in bad need of remediation. However, we suspect that the motive for such discrepancy has nothing to do with education and knowledge of punctuation. It would appear to again be deliberate. Please note the following:

Newton – 6 commas and 7 fullstops in 127 words

Penhalluriack – 3 commas in 535 words Plus the absence of inverted commas, apostrophes, etc.

We’ve copied the two speeches directly from the minutes. Readers, make up your own minds!

NEWTON: “In relation to Item 11.1 on tonight’s Agenda, Requests for Reports. Firstly, in October 2010 Council sought a report on, to the best of my recollection, every meeting with MRC and Trustees. That report was submitted to the Council Meeting of, to the best of my recollection, the 2 November 2010. The resolution was at that meeting to note the report.

To the best of my recollection that was unanimous. To the best of my recollection the Mover was Cr Penhalluriack. Since November 2010 the only contact I’ve had with the MRC or Trustees has been in implementation of Council resolutions. During the last two years I have never exercised the CEO’s delegated power in relation to the MRC or Trustees.”

PENHALLURIACK: “On the front page of the local Leader in an article ‘Mulch to fume about’ I think Cr Hyams suggests it should really be mulch ado about nothing I’m mentioned in it and it says I may have a Conflict of Interest because I sell mulch and similar products in my business.

This issue was addressed by the Municipal Inspectors different terms same issues and it was also addressed by me directly to the Audit Committee in my submission to the Audit Committee to ask them to investigate the mulch sheds.

I do not believe there is any Conflict of Interest whatsoever and had I thought there was I would have not raised the issue as I have with the Council.

The article goes on to say I raised concerns about the disease a form of pneumonia then it tells you how much of course the independent assessment cost and the independent assessment found that levels of bacteria and fungi in the air were not elevated and there was no negative test results to indicate any current health risk according to a Council report. What the expert report didn’t do was analyse the mulch it would have cost ten percent of the amount and the situation when they did their testing was that the mulch shed had been effectively emptied so there was not dust in the air whatsoever. The mulch at the back of the shed was damp moist composted and not likely to spread into the atmosphere generally certainly maybe as an aerosol within the mulch shed itself but not around the back of the mulch shed where the testing was done. Now it’s erm, I’m quoted as saying I’m concerned about the community safety not about whether I sell mulch or not it’s next to a school and next to a children’s playground. The literature I’ve seen anything within two hundred metres should be carefully monitored. I say the shed costing one hundred and sixty thousand dollars was built at the current site in 2009. The shed unfortunately was badly designed right from the start because when the testing was done the mulch in that shed had been there for two years. Mulch when it is produced commercially for customers be they commercial customers or free customers is pasteurised. The Australian Standard says that mulch should be pasteurised.

The selective quotations from the Leader are a good example of very poor reporting. They quote the report, no negative test results. They don’t say that the report also said exposure to shredded mulch can carry a risk to exposure of various fungi, yeasts and moulds and bacteria including legionella. They don’t say that the mulch was not pasteurised as it should be to accord with the Australian Standard AS4454-2003.

What they don’t say is that a community wide outbreak of legionnaires disease occurred in Pas De Calaise, France from November 2003 to January 2004 and of the eighty six laboratory confirmed cases eighteen were fatal.

Council voted on this matter they voted responsibly when they knew all of the facts and I believe the article in the Leader is misleading and false and needs to be criticised at this Council Meeting by me.”

April 28, 2011

MRC ‘Agreement’.

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, GE Council Meeting(s)
[12] Comments

LIPSHUTZ: Claimed this was a ‘far reaching agreement’ which goes well beyond what was originally proposed by the MRC. Outlined and summarised the ‘agreement’. critics will claim that council ‘ought to have been more robust’ . ‘both parties came to the negotiating table willingly’ and negotiations were robust, and ‘compromise for both sides’ resulted. Compared the previous position of the MRC and the current ‘improvements’ that the negotiating team now has, ‘last year $800,000 and now $1.8 million dollars’ for landscaping…..’As a councillor….I have to make decisions based on reality ….adopting an adversial role’ gains nothing. ‘You can’t come to the MRC and simply make demands, they’re not going to be achieved….there has to be a compromise and this is a compromise…vote against….and you get nothing’ Some hope the government will step in and give us what we want – ‘that is not going to happen’. ‘What the government has sought from both parties is that we act reasonably…

PILLING: Agreement provides for ‘solid foundation’ for present and future improvements of ‘access, amenity and usage’ of the racecourse. Through this agreement the ‘MRC can no longer deny the community’ its share of the racecourse. Will ‘be viewed in future years as a productive beginning…our negotiating team have done a commendable job…there will need to be ongoing negotiation between both parties to ensure that all aspects of this agreement are fulfilled and delivered’ and this will mean ‘continued good will on both sides’ . Agreement is demonstration of good faith…’this approach should be encouraged’. Outlined ‘new amenties’, toilets, etc. and ‘these are all significant advances’ as are ‘fencing removal with a staggered time frame’; unrestricted access from 9.30 and ‘MRC will pay for all improvements….except for those on council land and we will share costs with them where there are boundaries’. Time line is also an ‘important aspect’ – all have been given a ‘reasonable definitive timeline’ ‘so it will happen, it’s not just open ended’. ‘To reject this agreement as some colleagues are urging would place’ at risk the good will that has been generated and the future. ‘This would be a retrograde step and a risk I’m not prepared to take’. ‘This item is not about past history, personal crusades, personalities or individual grievances’. It’s about ‘delivering tangible real benefits now’

PENHALLURIACK: Read the intended recommendation about the agreement and asked Esakoff to rule on ‘whether or not this would be in conflict with the terms of reference of the Caulfield racecourse Special Committee’ since the terms of reference for that the committee state that it is to deal with issues concerning the racecourse. ‘That would seem to fly in the face of the motion which we have now’ which is usurping its powers. Penhalluriack asked Esakoff to make a ruling.

ESAKOFF: ‘What’s your question Cr. Penhalluriack?’

PENHALLURIACK: ‘I ask you to rule’ whether this should be council decision or special committee decision.

ESAKOFF: ‘It’s on the ordinary council meeting agenda so my reading would be that it qualifies council to’ consider. Penhalluriack then questioned whether because something is on the agenda does it mean that it’s’legal’? Esakoff’s answer was ‘It’s on the agenda. We’re dealing with it tonight’. Again Penhalluriack questioned Esakoff stating that since it’s on the agenda’ that makes it legal?”. She responded ‘Yes’.

LOBO: ‘this is one of the biggest issues to come before the council …what I feel is that we are racing, we are going too fast. Perhaps we should slow down and postpone…..

FORGE: ‘it disturbs me’ that some are saying ‘we must rush into this in case we lose it’. ‘We’re just beginning….I was under the understanding that the community expected further consultation…what further input do you expect to get from the public in this regard?’ Esakoff asked to whom Forge is addressing her question. Forge resopnded ‘to the special committee’. Esakoff then claimed that she didn’t understand the question enough to be able to answer it. Forge then quoted Lipshutz as saying that the special committee would be going back to the public. Esakoff interrupted and asked whether the question was concerning the centre of the racecourse. Forge replied that the issues were ‘intermarried’. Esakoff then stated ‘No, tonight we’re dealing with the Caufield reserve only’.

PENHALLURIACK: ‘Cr. Lipshutz would make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear, Cr Pilling, the only Green on council….

Pilling then interrupted claiming ‘personal attacks’ and told Penhalluriack to ‘speak to the issue’ and not indulge in personal attacks. Esakoff agreed with Pilling. Penhalluriack then dissented from her ruling claiming that ‘all I said was that Cr. Pilling is a member of the Green’s Party. If he finds that offensive he should resign from the party!. Esakoff then said ‘Cr Penhalluriack, we’re speaking to a motion here. We’re not having personal attacks on each other’.

PENHALLURIACK: Began by reiterating the history of the racecourse and stating that the public has been ‘excluded’ from the grant by Queen Victoria. ‘Tonight I stand ashamed to be a councillor of Glen Eira because the negotiators’…..’did a terrible job’. ‘almost everything they achieved was achieved by a letter from the MRC to Council in september last year….that was held secretive from council, all councillors I presume until it was published in the agenda for the Special Council Meeting on the 13th December last year’....’What has been achieved in my opinion is pathetic.‘ ‘Nobody will go into a public park with a big fence around it’ Most people are at work at 9.30 and instead of allowing people to enjoy a barbecue in summer they have to be out by sunset…’what’s wrong with having lighting in this particular park?’….’It will not work as a park’…’and the access is shared with horses. Sure the horses go, but they leave their shit behind and when you go into the park you can smell it’. Outlined his solutions for walking horses across the area…’It’s a deliberate move by the MRC to exclude the public because for the last 8 or ten years the public is suddenly gleaning an understanding that it’s their park’. It is not ‘the exclusive domain of the Melbourne Racing Club as they would like you to believe it is’….The MRC is a non profit organisation but ‘I’ve never known a more avaricious organisation in my life’. Spoke about the profits from pokies and compared Zagame’s payment of 8.3% in tax because it owns the land, compared to the MRC which can spend this ‘tax’ on watering the lawns in the racecourse and paying the labour. ‘We should have that money in council’. ‘You heard cr Tang earlier talking about this massive increase in rates that you’re going to be facing,…it should not be happening. That $3 million dollars…should be coming back to council’. ‘What we’ve got with this dreadful negotiation is a piece of nonsense….I can tell you that….in 24 months time the MRC will go to the government and say ‘Look we’ve wasted a million dollars on this park and nobody uses it’…..Cr. Lipshutz….has ‘caved in’ …or whoever was dealing with the MRC and it may well have been our CEO becuase the CEO and the planning department had a number of meetings with the MRC ….which we’re not informed about as councillors and we should be informed about it’. reiterated that this deal came from the MRC last September and ‘we didn’t know about it….we are heading for a disaster, we have missed a golden opportunity….If the motion is lost I’m going to move that there be further’ negotiations with the MRC’. doesn’t believe that it should be ‘discussed here’. ‘The deal we’ve got is a waste of the paper it’s written on’. ‘Five years to pull down the fence on Queen’s Avenue. I can do it in 5 minutes’!

FORGE: attempted to raise a point about ‘Winky Pop’ and the legal advice she had received that morning.

ESAKOFF questioned relevance. Forge responded with importance of the issue and it shouldn’t be decided tonight. Esakoff responded ‘this item is going to be decided tonight’.

HYAMS: ‘this is the best we’re going to get’. Stated that if council wants more ‘negotiation’ then ‘we’ll get what the MRC originally asked for which is less than what they’ve agreed to now – if we’re lucky!’….’we can’t get more….the MRC is not prepared to give us more unless a higher power is prepared to make them give us more and the advice that we had is that that’s not going to happen....so either we want a park in the middle of the racecourse or we don’t want a park…..My understanding is that the government thinks that the negotiations have been reasonable but if we keep on procrastinating, they might change their mind’. ‘There is an element here of taking a crusade against the MRC ….so personally….PENHALLURIACK OBJECTED AT THIS POINT saying that the allusion was to himself. ESAKOFF stated – “I don’t believe your name was mentioned Cr. Penhalluriack’. Penhalluriack then asked Hyams to whom he was referring. Hyams answered ‘Not just you Cr. Penhalluriack’. Esakoff then asked Hyams to withdraw the statement. Hyams then said there is an element of ‘concern with the MRC’s past behaviour’!!!! that ‘they would rather get nothing than perceive to lose to the MRC….I think if we say no to this it is actually a loss to the community….we can look at this in a year’s time and either we’ll have a park….or we won’t and it will be our fault for saying ‘no’. It’s that simple’…..negotiators did the best job they could have done…..compromise……MRC has moved a long way…..certainly we have not got all the 7 points – that was our ambit claim….we set out our position, we didn’t get our position and now….this is what we either accept or not….that’s not to say as time goes on…..there won’t be further improvements’. The ‘MRC can’t do that on their own’ (get rid of training)….’they need somewhere to put it, and those facilities need to be found’. In regard to sport, Hyams said you can’t have sport without facilities such as change rooms, ‘and the MRC doesn’t want to put facilities in the middle of the racecourse’. …..The question is do we want a park there or not? If we want a park vote for the motion….or keep butting our heads against the MRC for no other purpose than to make us feel good about ourselves….

ESAKOFF: negotiations when two parties get together and walk away both happy ‘a win win situation’ or a compromise on both sides.’ Negotiations are not held with one of those parties saying ‘this is what we want and unless we get it, forget it.’ The agreement will be ‘valuable’ and ‘meaningful’ to the community in terms of open space’….compared the decision making involved in this to the decision making that contestants make in game shows. ‘some take huge gambles and say ‘I came with nothing and I’m prepared to go home with nothing…in this case though it’s the community we’re playing for….we need to ask ourselves, what would the community do, what would they want. I believe they would want this win’….I don’t believe our residents would thank us if we were to say this is not enough….the risk is too great….to come home with nothing is irresponsible….I believe that this is a good outcome’.

LIPSHUTZ: ‘One thing you don’t do when you’ve been arguing for many years’ and then you talk only to say ‘hold on another three months….we were charged with negotiating…(and) each person represented the council’s position…each party has said it’s position is final and there is no more, that is the time to bring it back to the council’. Stated that Penhalluriack’s claims of avaricious MRC and their failure to pay council has ‘nothing to do with tonight’. ‘What we have tonight is an issue involving the park….all the issues that Penhalluriack has raised have been raised with the MRC….that’s what it is a compromise. Restated that there has been a major change from the past in that previously it was an ‘adversarial position’, now it’s a ‘conciliatory position’ ‘we’re working together and that is something that I think is very important’. Referred to Penhalluriack’s claims that the CEO had not informed council. ‘The CEO meets with many people during the course of the day….some have nothing to do with councillors…..to the best of my knowledge every meeting that the CEO has had with the MRC …has been brought back…I reject any issue of secrecy’. ‘….If we accept the community wins’.

MOTION PUT TO VOTE: Penhalluriack called for a division

REQUEST FOR REPORT

PENHALLURIACK: I’d like a detailed report on the meetings Andrew Newton has had with the MRC or representatives of the Trustees over the past two years. Seconded by Forge. ‘we’ve just heard’ that the CEO has reported on all meetings, ‘I don’t believe he has’, so I’d like detailed reports on what has been discussed and which hasn’t been reported back. Wanted to know what occured ‘behind our backs’.

HYAMS interjected and said that Penhalluriack should withdraw ‘that imputation’ about ‘behind our backs’. Penhalluriack said that if he’s wrong he would apologise. Esakoff asked Penhalluriack to withdraw the ‘assumption’. Penhalluriack then asked Esakoff what the assumption was that she was referring to. She repeated about meetings ‘behind our backs’ only to have Hyams interrupt again and state ‘negotiations behind our backs’. Penhalluriack insisted on the word ‘meetings’ – he withdrew negotiations and substituted ‘meetings’. Repeated again ‘behind our backs and without our knowledge’.

FORGE: ‘I can bear witness to that fact told to me by the CEO of the MRC that he had several meetings with Jeff Akehurst and the CEO’ and that councillors were not aware of that.

HYAMS claimed he had no objections to the report because if they voted against it, it would make it seem that they were trying to keep something secret.

TANG asked Penhalluriack to detail the previous report by CEO which had been approved by council

PENHALLURIACK: about 12 months ago; included some dates and some gaps

LIPSHUTZ: what were the gaps?

PENHALLURIACK: it was incomplete

MOTION CARRIED. PENHALLURIACK ASKED FOR A DIVISION

Newton later on spoke to the ‘request for a report’. We’ll comment on this in the next day or so.

April 24, 2011

More Agenda Items of Note

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

The various ‘Records of Assembly’, brief as they are, still contain some fascinating items. One that really caught our eye was – “At conclusion of Assembly of Councillors a Councillor only meeting took place with a Note Taker present.” We simply ask – who was the Notetaker? Was the Notetaker really ‘independent’ as per a contract? How much did this little tete a tete cost ratepayers if the Notetaker was an ‘outsider’ under contract? What was the purpose of this meeting? Could it have anything to do with Newton’s contract?

Then from the same meeting we get this: ‘Cr Penhalluriack – a Court Order to remove a Plane tree in Murrumbeena’. Given that this is a Court Order, rather than a VCAT order, we can only assume that another court case has taken place and that Council has been thumped. So the question again is – how much did this cost ratepayers? Were barristers, QCs or merely a solicitor involved? Did it need to go to court? Could council have averted court proceedings in any shape or form?

Two items that appear under the in camera discussions deserve comment. One relates to another sporting oval resurfacing for ‘more than $350,000’ at Lord Reserve. We wonder what the final cost will actually be? There’s also this tit bit under ‘personnel’ and Occupational Health and Safety Compliance? Again, we can only speculate, but has this anything to do with worker safety at the mulch heap, or possibly another issue altogether? The real question is will ratepayers be footing any bills or payouts on this little number?

Finally, Glen Huntly’s comment deserves taking up. $7.5 million has now been forecast for the ‘development’ of Booran Rd. Reservoir. Given that no plans have as yet surfaced (officially) for this site, then how can any sum be assigned and what is this money for? What are the mega plans that have possibly already been concocted – once again, without community input?

April 21, 2011

The ‘Sell Out’ is Complete!!!

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, GE Council Meeting(s)
[5] Comments

Here are the agenda items of note for next Wednesday night’s council meeting. We will be writing much, much more of these issues!

MRC and Council Agreement for Centre of the Racecourse

Readers should carefully dissect this proposed agreement. It basically ignores the resolution passed by Council less than a month ago! (See Item9.12)

Strategic Resource Plan

Rates up 6.95%
$5.5 million for Duncan MacKinnon in 20011/12 and then another $1.8 in 2012/13
Pavilions – $2m p.a. commencing in 2012-2013.
Elsternwick Child Care Centre – Council has developed a proposal to obtain use of some Crown Land on the east side of Kooyong Road to build a purpose-built child care centre – $250k has been allocated in 2011-2012 for building design and community consultation and $1.35m in 2012-2013 for building works.
Booran Road Reservoir – The SRP allows for the reinstatement and redevelopment of the Booran Road Reservoir Site – $4m in 2017-2018 and $3.5m in 2018-2019. (Hence for another 4 years this valuable open space will remain untouched!)

COMMENTS

No appreciable increase in spending on drains
Pavilions are the major priority of this council it seems – without any cost benefit analyses as to refurbishment/redevelopment as opposed to demolition and new buildings

Tree Protection

Incorporating Tree Protection into the Planning Scheme is considered too ‘cumbersome’. Instead, there is the option to simply introduce a new clause into the Local Law, which will require a permit for about 100-200 trees in the special category of ‘Classified’.

COMMENT: How will this stop ‘moonscaping’?

Council Plan

“Council proposes to retain the existing Council plan” (No further ‘consultation’ since it was done so wonderfully well in 2008!)

Planning Applications

Address	Proposal	Notification	Objections
29 Railway Pde	3 storey/16 dwellings	12 residences notified; 22 notices sent	21 objections
285 Hawthorn Rd	Synagogue/reduction in car parking	7 properties notified; 25 notices sent	14 objections + petition of 47 objections
8 A’Beckett St	2 dwellings	9 properties notified; 23 notices sent	2 objections
14-18 Lillimur Rd.	Amend current permit	35 properties notified; 49 notices sent	2 objections
Halstead, Cromwell & Hawthorn Rd	Subdivision into 19 lots; remove reserve status (current use: private open space)	82 properties notified; 148 notices sent	2 objections

COMMENT: The usual lack of notification continues. Please note that inverse correlation.

April 7, 2011

Council Meeting: April 5th

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

A petition was handed in regarding parking problems at McKinnon primary school. Burke announced that only part of the submission would be accepted, since the signatures weren’t all on ‘original’ papers as per the guidelines – some had been “attached to the document”. Penhalluriack then requested that all signatures be included since he was of the opinion that this was a technical issue rather than an attempt to ‘forge’ or misrepresent numbers. Esakoff responded that in order to be ‘valid’ each page had to have the identical ‘heading’. Burke explained that council had to ensure there was nothing untoward. Tang then moved a motion that the petition (minus the questionable signatures) be accepted and that ‘council investigate petitioners’ concerns’ and A REPORT BE PREPARED ON THE ISSUE. This was voted in unanimously. This is the first time in living memory, that petitions have not merely been ‘noted’, only to then disappear into the dustbin of history! Our congratulations to councillors for this one small step forward on the road to democracy and taking charge of matters!

Item 9.1 – 95 Nicholson St. – Rejected application (unanimous)

Esakoff declared 2 conflicts of interest. Magee/Lobo moved motion to reject permit application on grounds of ‘excessive mass’, ‘overdevelopment of site’, ‘excessive scale’, and fails to respond/respect to neighbourhood character, etc. Gallery was informed that this property had been ex Mayor Bob Bury’s residence. Magee lamented the loss of Jacaranda trees from the property and that someone could come along and put up ’22 little boxes’. His language included ‘monstrosity’, ‘decimate’, ‘eyesore’’, ‘height shouldn’t be… (anywhere) that should be in Glen Eira’ (yet 8 storeys were ok for elsewhere, Cr Magee?). A developer friend from elsewhere told Magee that ‘he hates developing in Glen Eira’ because our rules ‘were too strict’!!!

Rest of councillors spoke pretty much in the same vein. Pilling was on the ‘borderline’ because he would ‘like to see more development’. Penhalluriack, Tang, Lipshutz, Hyams also warned residents that this site was ripe for development and that it would occur.

Magee concluded by stating that Elizabeth Miller, MP was also an objector and hence she was ‘really criticising’ her own government’s policy. He challenged her to stand up in Parliament and state this. “I don’t want her to be involved to be popular, I want her to be involved to make a difference’. Also went on to claim that VCAT members who have no idea of the local area, don’t see the site, make decisions for ‘hundreds and hundreds’ of residents. [We wonder if Magee has ever read VCAT judgements and noted that in at least 95% of such judgements, the member DOES VISIT THE SITE and does ‘smell the roses’!!! We suggest that instead of grandstanding, Cr. Magee first establishes his facts!]

Item 9.2 – Centre Rd. – Application rejected (unanimous)

Hyams – nothing else of this height; too bulky; ‘shows a lack of respect for….neighbourhood character’. Pilling concurred stating ‘it just doesn’t fit there’. Tang also spoke of ‘overdevelopment’, ‘very bulky’, ‘landscaping’ and ‘visual amenity’. Magee wondered what’s in ‘developers’ heads’, they put up boxes and ‘let’s see how we go’. ‘We’re not gonna pass it, just a bloody waste of time’.

VCAT REPORT

Lipshutz skimmed over very quickly the VCAT decision on the 10 storey building on Glen Huntly Rd where the member had basically stated that since council had approved 8 storeys he couldn’t see much difference between that and granting the 10 storeys. Hyams stated that he could tell the difference. Tang also spoke about MP Miller and related it to past practice of Rob Hudson in coming out against council decisions. That ‘we need to see this followed through with action’ through their colleagues. In a direct reference to we presume Glen Eira Debates, Tang then stated that he had read how ‘people’ say that the fault lies with Glen Eira’s planning scheme. However the real fault in his view lies with VCAT because ‘they ignore our policies’. All this ‘indicates a lack of respect for council decisions’. Tang then explained that he was in favour of 7 storeys in Glen Huntly Rd., because this was the height of the existing church spire, so that the 7 storey development would not ‘tower’ over the spire!!! We respectfully suggest, that a tapering spire, is vastly different to a square, massive tower block of equal height!!!!!!!

April 5, 2011

Scorecard: Penhalluriack One – Newton, Lipshutz, Tang – Zero!

Posted by gleneira under GE Council Meeting(s)
[12] Comments

Frank Penhalluriack achieved a remarkable victory at council meeting this evening. The mulch heap at Glen Huntly Park will be closed down and removed because of the fear of potential health risks. Penhalluriack’s motion to close the facility was supported by Forge, Pilling, Lobo, Magee, Hyams, Esakoff and opposed by Tang and Lipshutz. The discussion went as follows:

Penhalluriack: Stated that there had been a lot of discussion amongst councillors but ‘on the evidence I have seen and researched this mulch….is a dangerous thing….can though fungi and bacteria…..cause legionella disease’. Penhalluriack said that he recognised that there had not been any deaths reported in the area that could be associated with mulch. ‘Research would indicate that deaths come more from woodchips’ when people get legionella. Stated that council organised ‘through the audit committee’ an extra opinion to look at the issue and their reports said ‘exposure to shredded mulch can carry a risk of exposure to various fungi, yeast and moulds and bacteria, including legionella’. ‘Is it worth anybody dying?’ ‘while the risk may be relatively small the risk is definitely there’. Elderly are especially susceptible ….’The third page….was unfortunately missed from the agenda and has been replaced tonight, but only in the black and white version’. The colour version shows ‘quite clearly what is not shown in the black and white verion’ – ie. the dust cloud that is created by the bulldozer pushing the mulch around. ‘It’s those very fine particles’ which carry the disease according to scientific tests to ‘at least 200 metres’. Within 20 metres of this mulch heap ‘we have a playground’, barbecue and school. ‘It’s not worth the risk. I know this is a great convenience to consumers…but the second photograph’ shows the mulch sitting way outside the container. ‘the recommendation from the expert is that it should not be outside’. There should be warning signs to the public to wear masks and gloves and wash your hands after handling. Said that the notice had been put out, and held up the sheet with the expert’s opinion, then said that he’s highlighted the legionella risk ‘but for some reason on the notice inside….those words have been missed. Those words are the most crucial’. It’s a risk that shouldn’t be taken by Council.

FORGE: outlined her experience as a physiotherapist where she had dealt with many people who had thoracic diseases such as emphysema, asthma, bronchitis ‘which may take up to thirty years to develop’. We shouldn’t subject any man, woman or child to further pollutants in the air given the evidence. ‘We have to take the much bigger picture and not just the possibility of legionaires’…’we have to take this seriously as well’.

LIPSHUTZ: ‘this is scaremongering….there are other ways …it’s true to say that the audit committee obtained a report…the issue here is how far do we go? ‘There are always risks in everything we do….we have a government report which says there is nothing wrong with this…and in fact that it is okay….Penhalluriack has got other data’. The consultant’s report ‘nowhere does it say we should close’ down. That’s not an issue – ‘i don’t want to have any danger to children or adults….we can take things to the nth degree…..’there is no clear indication of danger’…’ knee jerk reaction’….’let’s do testing, let’s see and if that at the end demonstrates that things are incorrect, close it’

TANG: stated that he’d had many conversations with Penhalluriack about this. ‘my issue with this suggests that it is a knee jerk reaction…it’s like a nanny state’. Used the analogy of car crashes that instead of implementing traffic lights, seat belt, we stop people driving. Penhalluriack ‘agitated’ for the report and after reading it, Tang agrees that ‘we certainly need to take steps to mitigate against these risks’…’I’m not debating the fact that there is a risk of legionella’. Read other sections of the report which said that the air testing results were not elevated when compared to surrounding areas….’you’re quite right to be concerned about risks and here we have some suggestions about how…so the conclusion I came to from reading the report …council should implement every one of the recommendations…council should close the facility until such time that every recommendation in the report is fully implemented and people should be fully aware of what the risks are…..and the signage should be larger’. Said that there was some concern about wind conditions when the tests were conducted, so suggests ‘that the site be tested at least once a month for six months immediately after you reopen’

PILLING: the mulch facility is a service to the community but the placement is wrong ‘wedged between a playground and a secondary school’ ‘I think it should be moved’. ‘The children’s playground was there first and we introduced this mulch heap, it was probably a poor decision then’. He hoped that a better site could be found in the future away from playgrounds and schools.

HYAMS: argued against Tang’s analogy with cars since everyone knows about the dangers and the need to wear seatbelts, but this isn’t the case with mulch and its dangers. Went on to state that he had no idea that diseases could be associated with mulch and that ‘a lot of people wouldn’t know that’. Warning signs aren’t enough – we have warning signs for everything and people still ignore them. ‘I don’t like the idea of a nanny state, but sometimes you need to protect people from themselves…in this case I think we’ve got to err on the side of caution’.

MAGEE: spoke about the timber industry and spoke about green and wet timber. ‘I cannot go to a green saw anywhere in Victoria without’ masks. Related that he is an asthmatic, and that the highest number of deaths of people working in the timber industry was in people working in green sawmills. ‘The only common denominator is dealing with wet timber’….the bacteria stays on the outside of the bark …’I think there is a very big link between wet timber and asthma’

ESAKOFF: ‘I too was sitting on the fence here’ but decided if ‘there is a minute risk’ and even though ‘I don’t like a nanny state’ but given it’s location near a playground caution is warranted.

PENHALLURIACK: stated that he thought that the installation that Council currently has is contrary to the Australian Standards. Further the mulch that council has is ‘not pasteurised’ and the Standards Australia says that commercial installations should produce only ‘pasteurised mulch’. Said that he wouldn’t like the state authorities to come and have a look at the mulch facilities and find that they are not up to the standards.

Motion was carried 7 to 2.

CONCLUSION:

The central issue of WHY THE AUDIT COMMITTEE DID NOTHING has not been addressed
Tang’s declaration that he agrees that ‘you’re quite right to be concerned about risk’ is another black mark against the Audit Committee for not passing this information (report) onto the rest of the councillors. He admits that he only got to read it after Penhalluriack’s urging.
One of the rare times that administration has been publically criticised in their lousy decision to place this mulch heap near a playground
Newton has not answered the questions as to why the report lay on his desk for at least 12 days before being tabled at the audit committee and the need for various versions?
Why is the word ‘legionella’ not included in warning signs as recommended?
Why did Lipshutz, a lawyer on the audit committee, not insist that the report go to council?
This issue is far from resolved. What Glen Eira Debates can claim is that we have at least forced Newton to produce the full text of Penhalluriack’s memo to the Audit Committee. We doubt very much if it would have been included in tonight’s agenda items unless we had not analysed and made a fuss about this selective editing!!!!

« Previous Page — Next Page »

Glen Eira Debates