For the first time ever we are repeating a post in its entirety. It’s the resolution on council’s ‘position’ on the racecourse centre. Given the sudden girding of the loins by the likes of Lipshutz and company, we thought it worthwhile to revisit the shambles that took place in April, 2011. There was no fire and brimstone then – only complicity, secrecy, and in our view, the utter sellout of residents. Now, when the deal is done and dusted, these very same councillors find their voice.

What was said 2 years ago should never be forgotten. What was NOT SAID last Tuesday night is just as important. No mention of what this council has done to ensure that the MRC abides by the various agreements – ie keeping gates open; pulling down fences; proper traffic management; ensuring the clean up of Queen’s Avenue, and so on. Utter, resounding silence on all these points. Instead the gallery witnessed nothing more than huge egos grandstanding. We have to also question whether the resolution to forward a ‘letter’ to MPs and others would have eventuated if the MRC had not embarrassed council even further with their Media Releases and interviews. If this council thought it was so important to ‘restate’ its position, then why did they not decide to write to all and sundry at the previous meeting? Was this even discussed in those secret assemblies? If so, how did the gang respond? Did they reject this idea a month ago? Our guess is that council were forced into the letter by the outcry against them! Again, everything is too late and useless!

Here’s our post from April 28th, 2011.

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 adversarial 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 amenities’, 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 responded ’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 because 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.

MAGEE moved to accept. Delahunty seconded.

MAGEE: said that the document sets out council’s ‘reasonable expectations’ on the use of Crown Land. Went over the history and that the reserve was set aside for ‘racing, recreation’ and park. Stated that racing is ‘well and truly catered for’ and that recreation and park isn’t.

Didn’t think that trustees should be in control but a committee of management since it was gazetted in 1886 as a committee of management but this was abolished in the 1920’s. Went on to talk about the Guidelines put out by DSE on committees of management and that the trustees are seen as such a committee. But these trustees don’t produce an Annual report, nor a financial statement, nor publish their minutes. Members of the public are also excluded. Went on to explain composition – ie 6 members of the MRC, 6 government appointed members and 3 councillor representatives. Said that the 6 MRC members can basically ‘adjudicate’ on everything. Gave the example of the trustees ‘about to lease the racecourse to the MRC’. Said he wanted to clarify that the trustees are ‘very honourable’ people but that perceptions from the community are ‘hard to’ argue against when 6 trustees aren’t just members of the MRC, but on the ‘committee’ of the MRC. The Chair of the Trustees  is vice chair of the MRC and the Chair of the MRC is also a trustee (McDonald). Stated that there’s therefore the situation where the trustees are leasing land to themselves for $71,000 per year. ‘The court of public opinion is what matters here’. Magee said that he ‘raised a lot of these concerns’ last year and that conflict of interest is ‘something that’s very dear to us’ and that council has to abide by these rules. Said that he asked for 3 things: advice from Auditor General, valuer general and DSE. He wanted to know the ‘value of the racecourse and what we’re leasing’; also wanted legal advice on conflict of interest and solictor general’s advice ‘came back….you have a conflict of interest’ and the ‘trustees said No I don’t’.

People also raise issues about ‘business’ running on Crown Land. The trust leases this to the MRC ‘for about $10,000 per year’. That’s then leased to the Aquinita stables. The people who run these stables (Symonds etc.) are MRC people. So question people might ask is ‘is it right or is it wrong’? Wants Napthine to ‘answer these questions’. Said he’d written letters previously but got no answers. He thought that some of these people have ‘conflict of interest’ and people want this looked at.

DELAHUNTY: said that it’s important that ‘council speak in one voice’ and that she thought it is ‘the biggest issue’ that the council would have to ‘deal with’. Said that the current governance ‘arrangements’ are ‘an absolute insult to us as citizens’. The 3 purposes for the land (racing, park, recreation) ‘is paramount’ to ‘restoring supply issues’ (ie sport). Getting rid of training is important for this to occur. The creation of the synthetic training track ‘seems to be at odds with their statements of 2009’ where the position then was quite ‘collaborative’ – read bits from the statement especially the bit about the MRC providing council with an annual update. ‘Well I think we just got our update!’  ….’2.8 million dollars says that training is there to stay and that’s not good enough for the people of Glen Eira’. The money spent on the training track is ‘one million more than they managed to scrape together’ for the centre and that in their media release they ‘use a comparison to sporting grounds’ explaining to people ‘just how big this bloody track is’…’65 tennis courts they say….(this is their version of) ‘flicking the bird at the people of Glen Eira’.

Getting rid of parking is a necessity ‘because it’s a public park’. She agrees with the position but that’s irrelevant because when passed the resolution becomes ‘our position as councillors’ and ‘this is a position I will uuphold, even though it might be difficult’ (family functions). Said that whomever she speaks with that this will be ‘my position’ whether it’s speaking with local MPs or perhaps attending the fun run and ‘I know this might be difficult for some of my council colleagues’ but they understand that ‘they must uphold this position at every reasonable opportunity’. This puts ‘what the public’s position is’ and isn’t ‘asking for anything that’s unfair’. Saw this as a ‘rebalancing act’ which has been ‘tried in the past’. Mentioned Esakoff being here for 10 years and ‘putting up with these issues’ but with no ‘resolution’. Supports the motion and will support it fully at fun-runs and any liberal functions even though she doubts she’ll get an invite and if she didn’t fully advocate this position that she would have to ‘seriously consider’ her role as a councillor. Asserted that ‘to do her job properly as a councillor’ she’ll use all the ‘political influence I can muster’. Challenged other councillors to ‘do the same’. Said that unless all councillors were willing ‘to advance this position’ that they would not be ‘acting in the best interests’ of those people who elected them.

PILLING: endorsed Magee’s ‘passion’ and acknowledged that the issue ‘has been around for a long time’. Thought that this position was better than previous ones because it’s ‘more defined’ and ‘appropriate’. Said that the issue was a result of both sides of politics not ‘addressing’ the issue and that the new council was committed to this. Removing horse training was a ‘key part’.

LOBO: Spoke about the lack of open space in Glen Eira and that population increase as predicted would put further stress on Glen Eira’s lack of open space. Said that ‘extensive developments’ had occured at the racecourse ‘resulting in the exclusion’ of residents to land that ‘have been legally accessible’ for ages. Said that much of the  2 billion dollars of land is now behind fences and people are excluded. ‘Even Berlin got their wall down 23 years ago’ but the MRC are just continuing to ‘put their walls up’. With high rise and increasing population the need for more open space is crucial. This means that people are turned away from sporting clubs. Called ‘upon the MRC to release the grounds to the rightful owners’. Said he hoped that the new councillor trustees would ‘put up a very passionate fight’. Stated that is the government wanted more people in Glen Eira that they should ‘stop shaking hands’ with the MRC management.

Went on to talk about the money the MRC makes from gambling and how this isn’t shared with the community.

OKOTEL: said it was ‘exciting’ to see council taking the issue on ‘so seriously’. It was ‘wonderful’ to see how ‘committed’ the council is to ‘advocate’ for the position put in the motion and how the views of residents are ‘being considered for the use of the land’. Asked a question about whether the stables are on crown land or freehold. Was told that the Aquinita was on crown land. Hyams said that she might have been thinking about the heritage stables and not Aquinita.

HYAMS: said as a new trustee he wrestled with the question of whether there’s a conflict of interest and ‘came down on the side’ that he doesn’t have a conflict of interest. Reason was that there’s a law about ‘conflicting duties’ which says that if you’re an officer that has a ‘direct interest’ then there’s an ‘indirect interest’. Said that ‘direct interest’ means that there’s a possibility of benefiting the opportunities (in this instance the Trust) ‘would be directly altered’ if decisions were made in a specific way. (Hyams cited the Local Government Act on all this). Said that he ‘would love it’ if circumstances could be altered by their decisions because then the trust would be doing ‘what it was meant to do’. But didn’t think that council taking this decision would have ‘a direct affect’ on the Trust and therefore he didn’t think that he’s got a conflict of interest.

Said that his position on the MRC is different because their job is to ‘promote racing’ and that’s what they’re doing. The ‘scandal’ is that the ‘MRC has been allowed to do this’ as a result of trustees ‘abrogating their duty’. The trust gave control to the MRC and that ‘should no longer’ go on. Said that he’d been ‘invited to speak at the opening’ but wasn’t sure whether ‘after tonight’ the invitation would still be there. Said that ‘there is a park in the middle of the racecourse’ and that’s a ‘good first step’ but that ‘people will expect more’.

Referred to Delahunty saying that this has been ‘going on for a long time’. He then mentioned the Select Committee hearing of 2008 and how council ‘articulated’ their position through Esakoff as Deputy Mayor. Said that that position was ‘very similar’ to this motion and even the Select Committee’s report ‘was very similar’. Said that when Magee asked all councillors to support that Hyams is sure that Magee ‘in no way intended to infer that this was not the position of all councillors’ nor that ‘any of us needed to be persuaded’.

Stated that the existence of racing is ‘accepted’ but that it’s time that ‘other uses had equal acceptance’ and that he wouldn’t have any problem putting this position forward as a trustee. Said that the trustees are an ‘anachronomism’ and would like to see a committee of management and the MRC charged a commercial rate.

MAGEE: started to ‘defend’ the MRC because ‘they do what they’re allowed to do’. The trustees haven’t got any ‘guidance’, ‘rules’ or ‘policies’. The only thing that’s in place is that the public are excluded from meetings, no annualj report, no minutes, etc. Said he asked for documentation on the ‘rules’ and was told by one trustee ‘think I saw a little red book once’! So a ‘2 billion dollar asset being run by a little red book’ that ‘may or may not exist’. Stated that he wanted the Caulfield Cup ‘run there for the next 100 years’ but he also wanted to see the place opened up.

Talked about the land swap and how the role of the trustees was to protect the land and they decided that it was no longer needed and the MRC bought it and last year the Minister ‘announced a 1 billion dollar development on that land’ and that the developer is the MRC. They are now ‘one of the largest commercial developers in Victoria’. Also that the Minister ‘decided that I’m not worthy of being a trustee anymore’ and that it could have ‘something to do with the letter’ he wrote to Baillieu. The MRC is classified as ‘non-profit’ but here they are as a major developer. They own 11 hotels, 3 racecourses, tabarets and are ‘into gambling’….’all we want is some land in the centre of the racecourse which is ours’. Said that at the trustee meetings he argued against the landswap because the trustees ‘were getting nothing’ because ‘the land never came back to the trust. It belongs to the DSE’. Said their, the trustee’s  land is now 8,500 metres smaller and the trustees themselves did this. They did this because there isn’t any documented policy. Wanted to know how the trustees ‘could give this land to the MRC….not knowing that there is conflict of interest’ and how could the 6 MRC members buy the land and then ‘announce a development of 1 billion’ without seeing this conflict of interest. This happened because ‘there are no rules’. The result is that residents are locked out and that whenever something is on they need the land for parking so people are again losing out.

HYAMS PUT THE MOTION. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

PS: THE LEADER VIEW!

Champion mare Black Caviar with strapper Vanessa Bartlett at Caulfield. Picture: Michael Klein Herald Sun

Councillors voted unanimously to adopt a 10-point position statement that commits all councillors to advocating for horse training to be phased out so the Crown land is open for more public use.

Should the reserve be used for different purposes? Have your say below.

The nine-point statement demands massive change, including phasing out all racehorse training.

Other key demands:

• Equal land for community sport and racetracks;
• Leases or licences put in place for each of the reserve’s three main uses;
• Horse training to be phased out;
• Public use to take precedence over car parking;
• Commercial rent charged for all commercial activities; and
• Governance by committee of management.

Glen Eira has the smallest amount of public open space of any Melbourne council.