Glen Eira Debates

Item 9.14 of council agenda was membership of the Caulfield Racecourse Precinct committee. This committee was set up in late 2009 and comprised 4 councillors. The recommendation was to appoint another councillor to replace Magee who resigned following his appointment as trustee to the MRC.

Tang vacated the chair since as a trustee he declared a conflict of interest. Magee did likewise. Hence, there were only 6 councillors in chamber – Pilling is on leave.

Cr. Penhalluriack moved a motion to DISBAND THIS COMMITTEE. His argument was that he now has to hang his head in shame; he had voted last year in favour of this committee believing that some good may come out of it, but he was mistaken. The whole process is undemocratic and anticommunity. Only 4 councillors will be able to vote on vital issues such as the C60 amendment and the centre of the racecourse because they are trustees, or have been winky popped as he and Forge have been. This is antidemocratic and anticommunity. All this because of a ‘convoluted law and a convoluted interpretation of the law’. When we discuss C60 ‘I’m not allowed to vote… (this is) a nonsense’. ‘This is my park, my land and I’m being excluded…Why should we leave it to 4 people when 9 people have been elected’? ‘Council is not beholden to the MRC’. ‘Council needs to take a stand’…’time council stood up… I want to have a say in C60…”

Cheryl Forge seconded this motion stating that this issue was the most undemocratic thing that had yet faced this council.

Lipshutz opposed the motion stating that whilst terrible, the MRC will go to court and ‘our decision goes down the gurgler’ if processes are incorrect. Therefore conflict of interest is important and must be taken into account. He didn’t want to ‘take the risk’.

Lobo began by stating that it is a ‘shame that we have laws where lawyers play around and earn their living’ Frank is in the history books for making things happen. He has been ‘gagged and he has my full support’.

Hyams agreed with Lipshutz and ‘empathised’ with Frank. He offered two reasons why council needs this committee – (1) potential litigation and (2) problem is the decision relates to perceptions of bias and when statements might be seen as perceptions of bias. ‘we make a decision and we’re exposed to litigation’. Again and again we heard it was ‘risk to council’.

Penhalluriack responded by stating that this was an atrocious situation. If Lipshutz and Hyams are correct then the only people who could challenge are the MRC and they ‘wouldn’t have the gall to stand up’ and go to court. Council must challenge them to do that. They have excluded us year after year and this committee should be abandoned

Esakoff who had taken the chair to replace Tang, then used her chairman’s position to cast the deciding vote. Penhalluriack, Lobo and Forge, voted for abolishing the committee; Lipshutz, Hyams, and Esakoff voted against. Esakoff then used her decisive casting vote – without giving any reasons for this vote. She did not utter a word, except state that she is voting against the motion. Penhalluriack called for a division.

Lipshutz/Hyams then moved the motion that Esakoff be appointed as councillor on the committee.

Penhalluriack then questioned Esakoff’s ‘bias’ in that she had previously voted against his motion to abandon the committee when she is now being nominated for the committee. The response was that councillors can vote themselves onto committees. Penhalluriack then ‘respectfully dissented’ from this decision, asking that this be put in the minutes. Penhalluriack also asked for a vote on his motion of dissent – it was declined after much confusion, consultation with Newton and Burke. Esakoff was voted onto the committee. Surprisingly Forge voted for her!!!!

OUTCOME:

• 4 councillors (a minority) will decide the fate of C60 – Lipshutz, Esakoff, Pilling and Hyams
• 4 councillors decide the fate of the Racecourse for 132,000 residents
• Council will not, as Penhalluriack states ‘stand up’ to the MRC
• Council has abrogated its responsibilities to residents and to all semblance of democratic process 

• Lobo got the ball rolling by questioning the accuracy of the record/minutes of assembly. He noted that the reference to communication via emails should read ‘racism’.
• On Item 9.1 (5 storey development) Lipshutz used the term ‘appropriate’ at least 5 times in the space of 10 sentences. Pilling concurred. Passed unanimously.
• Items 9.2 and 9.3 were passed. Magee voted against item 9.3. The basic argument was that these items were really only ‘housekeeping’, the land was not really valuable as open space/park, since it was behind a brick wall, no-one knew about it, and hence too late to do anything about it since it wasn’t in council’s control – although they had ‘authority’. PITY THAT THE PUBLIC WASN’T PREVIOUSLY INFORMED THAT THERE IS A COURT CASE PENDING BETWEEN THE OWNERS!!! Seems that this little detail somehow escaped the Officers’ report. Perhaps Glen Eira Debates should take some credit in prompting this tiny tit-bit of information into the open?
• Farce of the evening was the self-congratulatory performance of nearly all councillors who actually thought they were conducting a ‘debate’ on the financial statements and the prioritisation of capital works. Perhaps ‘debating’ sessions should be given to councillors in conjunction with refresher courses on governance as recommended by the Municipal Inspector?
• We’re told that the item which generated most ‘debate’ was Esakoff’s ‘urgent business’ relating to potential state government regulation on pruning of trees near power lines. Esakoff moved that GE provide $30,000 for ‘fighting fund’ in conjunction with other councils and MAV. Magee opted for the ‘wait and see’ approach. Pity that such ‘debate’ and ‘spontaneity’ cannot be directed to more pressing issues that impact severely on residents.
• 2 public questions were taken ‘on notice’ and one was declared inadmissable as it did not refer to a councillor in the performance of his duty as councillor. A question directed to senior executive was also taken on notice. Will be interesting to see how long it takes for these ‘answers’ to surface!

Apparently there were also numerous occasions when several councillors did not know correct procedures as to asking questions of officers (Esakoff); being allowed ‘Right of reply’ on behalf of someone else (Magee); speaking to agenda item (Lobo). After two years, and for some many more, is it asking too much that councillors are au fait with their own local law and its Meeting Procedures? Even Tang we’re told had to defer to the wisdom of Burke!