Glen Eira Debates

Tuesday night’s agenda contains several interesting items. We have reports from the Pools Steering Committee and the Sport and Recreation Advisory Committee. In typical Glen Eira fashion both of these so called ‘minutes’ have assumed the mantle of ‘Records of Assembly’ – meaning that one line sentences are legally the official ‘minutes’ of these meetings. For example, all we get from the Pool Steering Committee is:

“Matters considered 

(i) Previous Minutes

Security over Shutdown Period 

(ii) GESAC Project Update Report”

 The recreation committee is a little more forthcoming with information but it still remains on the very, very scant side – ie.

“Public Questions – ground allocations

Discussion regarding public questions in relation to ground allocations and authorised and unauthorised usage. Discussions covered;

• enforcement of the Local Law,

• fencing/taping off the ovals to keep unauthorised groups off and protect the grounds,

• perceptions of conflict of interest,

• usefulness of the Local Law,

• Local Laws in other municipalities,

• distribution of the Frisbee Report,

• guidance provided to Officers in relation to the Frisbee report,

• outcomes of the Municipal Investigation in relation to matters concerning the Frisbee group, and

• whether the Local Laws needed to be changed.

Action: Officers continue to monitor the situation and the matter be considered at a future date”.

 Then of course, there are the planning applications. As per usual, those which are likely to be the most contentious have the least number of notifications, yet the highest number of objections. Council obviously works on the principle of inverse relationships! Here is a table which we’ve drawn up from the various items to illustrate our point.

 There’s also a VCAT appeal where officers recommend acceptance of amended plans. The number of notifications is not listed, but there are 88 objections.

Finally a couple of interesting items from the in camera section – (1) again legal advice pertaining to the payment of ‘legal fees’, we presume, for councillors fronting the municipal inspector with their lawyers, and (2) under ‘personnel’ an item about contracts. Given that the only contract that council has control over is the CEO’s, then speculation should be rife about what’s going on here!

•  Minutes of last meeting were accepted unanimously. Readers should recall that Penhalluriack had indicated his dissent from Esakoff’s ruling and requested that this be included in the minutes. The subsequent minutes failed to record any of this. Last night’s meeting in effect wiped history – without a murmur from anyone! There is now no official record of what actually happened. Any future investigation (since we presume audio tapes will be wiped as soon as possible) will only have these so called ‘official’ minutes to go on. So, what happened behind those closed doors? What pseudo-legal argument(s) did Newton, Burke and co. propose to stifle discussion and debate on this most important point? Why did Penhalluriack not mutter a word? What about Lobo? Magee? Pilling? Why this continual complicity of silence? At the very least, the community deserves some explanation as to why a councillor’s request has been ignored. 
• Lobo commented that Co-ordinator of Godfrey house has resigned and that they’re ‘in trouble’; ‘council may need to look at this vertically’!???? 
• Assembly of Councillors reports: Esakoff/Pilling to accept – not a word said by anyone. These ‘records’ were not included in the online version of the agenda! Error? Deliberate? Competence?

1. Item 9.1 Station St. Development: (Hyams/Penhalluriack) –  resolution passed unanimously  – ‘up to 48 dwellings’. Hyams praised the application as an ‘interesting development’ and for being ‘innovative’ as well as ‘fitting in with planning guidelines’. The fact that it’s a 5 storey building ‘may be a bit high’(!) but because it’s part of Phoenix Precinct and c60 it fits in. 
2. Item 9.3 Morgan St application: (Pilling/Esakoff) – Pilling had ‘some concerns’ conceding that ‘it is true that there are no side by side in the street’ but that there were other applications in waiting for this! Ultimately ‘it’s a reasonable application and I support it’. Esakoff also conceded that ‘side by side’ is ‘not popular in glen Eira’ but the alternative of one behind the other ‘causes the same angst’. Further with all the conditions imposed that this will ‘ameliorate the angst of the neighbours’. Penhalluriack stated he was in two minds over this since it does represent ‘huge bulk for the street’ and is ‘out of character’. Tang endorsed Pilling and stated that since there were already two storey developments in the street it would be hard to oppose this application. Vote – 8 to 1 Penhalluriack voted against motion. 
3. Item 9.9 Packer Park (Esakoff/Forge): petanque gone; lemon trees gone; reorientate bowls area to a north/south aspect; ‘as a matter of urgency pursue’ links between state and federal government arrangements for kinda (ie -no kindas), and developments to be implemented (barbecues) when funding is available. Esakoff went into the 20 months history of this site; consultation ‘methodology’ was also elaborated upon; ‘from all of these methods 78 comments were received’ with (of course) the vast majority supporting the concept plan. “it should be noted that….80% were in support…20% suggested changes’. The gallery were then treated to an expose of the limited amount of open space available and the prediction by the VEAC paper that as density increases open space will decrease. Admitted that kindergartens were suggested but ‘considered unfeasible for a number of reasons, including town planning restraints’, ‘high cost of development’, and ‘compatability with adjoining areas’. Reported that council carried out a ‘quite extensive’ investigation in response to government Universal Access Policy (which as far as we know has never been made public!) and which looked for suitable kindergarten locations in Glen Eira. The report apparently proposed 7 appropriate locations and Packer Park was not one of them. Esakoff then went on to state that Packer park is actually in the McKinnon zone for kindergartens and that there is greater need in Murrumbeena. Carnegie is the ‘ideal site’! Esakoff did however note that if the kindergarten HAD BEEN AN OPTION THEN THE RESPONSES WOULD HAVE BEEN QUITE DIFFERENT!  ‘Kindergartens are important, they are emotive and they require long term solutions. But, it must be the right solutions and…not anything will do’. ‘at the end of the day …will be a valuable addition to Packer Park, for all residents, young and old… and should provide many, many hours of enjoyment..’

Forge: ‘I am happy to support everything that she (Esakoff) has put forward’

Magee: ‘$370,000 is a lot of money….at last count I think we still had 60 odd children’ for next year that didn’t have a place…$370,000 of ratepayers money to pull out a bowling green to put in a bowling green’. Magee basically stated that he would not be happy to do this until Glen Eira reached a situation where it had fixed up all its other needs. Carried 8 to 1 Magee voted against. 

• Item 9.10 Booran reservoir (Penhalluriack/Forge)

Penhalluriack: ‘officers can go further….it’s very important that we analyse in more detail the cost…’. Penhalluriack basically argued for more research to be done before a decision could be made. Forge also stated that ‘we need to get to the nitty gritty’ before deciding. Lipshutz claimed that Penhalluraick’s motion was ‘non-specific’ and that it should contain more detail. Penhalluriack went on to state – ‘the officers had a motion to work to…(their report) I believe is rather superficial . Penhalluriack wanted to know – strength of walls; whether surface is clay, what weight can they hold? ‘I want to know…whether we can reclaim this reservoir tomorrow….’

Pilling was ‘happy with the report’ and asked ‘why take a step backwards’? In summing up Penahlluriack said ‘we need to know. There’s nothing worse than flying blind. We need to know..we need to know all the facts before we start…..’Penhalluriack’s motion was lost. FOR – Magee, Forge, Penhalluriack 

Item 9.8 Boyd park water (Pilling).

Penhalluriack spoke against the motion stating residents believe ‘they (council) are hopeless, but I’ve been defending council. But this one is the most ridiculous waste of money I’ve ever come across…This is $1.1 million dollars. Yes the government is giving half. So what? It is still money that can be spent’ elsewhere than this ‘extravagant, extroadinary waste of money’. He estimated that the final cost of the water would be 15.17 cents per litre. ‘Why should we be spending 16 cents per litre on this water….? “This is a nonsense….this is one of the worst money wasting schemes I’ve ever come across..’ No-one in their right mind would want to install this tank underground and pay 16 cents per litre. Magee agreed with Penhalluriack – it was still spending $500,000 council dollars. That’s money ‘that we could spend in our municipality servicing our ratepayers…’

Tang then stated that Penhalluriack ‘has gone further than he needed to’; that he didn’t have to talk about ‘the quality of the proposal’ and include ‘gratuitous references’ about it!!! ‘I think it is a good proposal’.

Lobo also saw it as a ‘big waste of money’ and wanted a ‘cost benefit analysis before we consider it further’. Forge also called for a more ‘accurate cost benefit analysis’ and the need to defer decision until more analysis was completed.

MOTION WAS CARRIED. PENHALLURIACK CALLED FOR A DIVISION 

This post is now long enough. We’ll conclude the report on public questions, delegations, etc. in the next few days.

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!