GE Governance

Archived Posts from this Category

January 3, 2012

Compare & Contrast: Notice Of Motion, Transparency & Recision

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance
[2] Comments 

From Manningham Leader – Anna Prytz

No gag on councillors: Free speech a winner as councillor’s bid to quieten colleagues is defeated

“PLANS to investigate a gag on Manningham councillors and ban public access to meetings has been quashed. At last Tuesday’s council meeting, Cr Graeme Macmillan’s motion to bar the public’s access to the recordings of meetings on the council’s website — and to pass bylaws prohibiting councillors publicly criticising each other — was defeated after a recision motion by Cr Stephen Mayne. The motion was carried. Executive manager of corporate services Steve Goldsworthy said it was illegal for a council to impose the proposed bylaws and penalties.

‘‘Local councils pass laws in accordance with the Local Government Act,’’ he said.

‘‘If your new laws diminish what is already available in law or in society, that is not legally acceptable.’’

Cr David Ellis said he was astonished the matter had gone so far.

‘‘This is a seriously deficient motion,’’ he said. ‘‘Now is the time for us to reaffirm our commitment to transparency.’’

In the absence of the three Koonung ward councillors who voted to investigate the proposed ban at last month’s meeting, only Cr Macmillan and Cr Meg Downie supported the motion.

Both denied the move was about restricting free speech, but rather about ending ‘‘bullying’’ by Cr Mayne.

‘‘Cr Mayne thinks it is fair game to criticise,’’ Cr Downie said. ‘‘This is harassment and bullying.’’ Cr Macmillan said Cr Mayne’s ‘‘cowardly’’ blog posts were unfair and unbalanced. Addressing Crs Macmillan and Downie, Cr Mayne vowed to continue to be an advocate of free speech.

‘‘I’ll defend your right to make the very aggressive, highly critical and attacking comments you’ve just made,’’ he said, adding he was ‘‘relieved the illegal and embarrassing motion is finally off the table.’’

The full audio recording of this motion is available at: http://www.manningham.vic.gov.au/maccwr/_assets/main/lib90295/13%20december%202011%20audio%20notices%20of%20motion%2014.1.mp3. Please note this is a large file and may take several minutes to download. It is however worth listening to!

 

 

December 29, 2011

The Truth Shall Set You Free

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, GE Governance, GE Planning
[7] Comments 

From page 8 of the Melbourne Racing Club Annual Report – http://secure.melbourneracingclub.net.au/news/2011MRCAnnualReport.pdf

Council decided upon a further period of community consultation before passing a resolution at the end of April to recommend adoption of the Amendment, with only minor alteration to the original proposal. This led to the formal announcement of the approval of the $1 billion dollar development at Caulfield on 28 June.

The Planning Scheme Amendment for the mixed use Caulfield Village development allows for up to 1,200 – 1,400 residential apartments, up to 20,000 (square)m of office space and approximately 17,500 (square)m of retail shopping, food and beverage outlets. Caulfield villege is to be situated on five hectares of land adjacent to Caulfield Racecourse. Approximately 2,000 car parking spaces will be provided within the development.

In taking the project to the marketplace, the Club is seeking expressions of interest from premier developers and investors within Australia and Internationally. This will be a two stage process, with expressions of interest being taken until early January, after which the Club will then narrow the candidates down to a preferred short-list.

In some ways the project is only now about to commence and works will be staged progressively over several years. I would like to expressly thank the development Team led by Brian Discombe for their outstanding work in delivering this approval.

Prior to the development of Caulfield Village, the Club will review Members’ car parking arrangements. As previously advised, Members’ car parking facilities will be relocated to three key areas – the Guineas Car Park, the newly expanded Kambrook Road Car Park and the Centre of the Racecourse, which will have dedicated reserved Members’ car parking.

COMMENTS

Finally, the truth is out! The ‘plan’ submitted by the MRC and passed by the gang was, and is, a work of fiction. Please note the following:

  • The sudden increase in both office and retail space
  • The sudden increase in potential apartments – now up to 1400 units
  • The use of the centre car parking as a “dedicated” members carpark – in other words, a public carpark suddenly becomes a private “members” carpark!
  • What does “approximately 2000 carparks” mean? – 1950 for 1400 units? Or 1850 for 1400 units? Or maybe just 1000 car spots? Your guess is as good as ours!
  • We can only conclude that nothing which has been put before the public is set in concrete. That the MRC will change, adapt, and manoeuvre however they choose and with the probable full complicity of Glen Eira Council!
 

December 20, 2011

Some Basketball Soul Searching

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Service Performance
[44] Comments 

The following post has appeared on Cr. Pilling’s blog.

“Earlier today sent this email thru to Crs ,CEO and admin on the need next year to review the whole Expression of Interest process that led to the present unfortunate situation where 1400+ local kids, families and clubs will most probably not be enjoying the brand new facilties at GESAC next year.
It was a case I feel of the wrong process for the wrong situation and an important part of any review will be acknowledging this. To conduct to what amounted as a quasi commercial tender process was to say the least misguided.
“In the aftermath of this years Gesac basketball saga feel it would be helpful to spend time in the New Year reviewing the whole EOI process and the criteria used in assessing.
I feel there are real questions as to whether this was the right way to go from the start.It’s too simple and misses the point just to say that the MBA should have submitted a better bid.
There has to be a better way of determining the allocation – one that is more equitable and doesnt over emphasise ‘marketing business plans’ and court fees at the expense of real community need and the realities of local sport. Will do some research on similar situations for info on different allocation models. In my mind there are similarities to the childcare fees issues about getting the balance right.
In the end the current EOI process lead to a poor outcome that has caused anghst and outcry in our communities- For this reason alone we should work hard to ensure a fairer more community minded process is in place for the second twelve mths of GESAC” .

COMMENT

Whilst we applaud Cr. Pilling for his stance and making this public, we also believe that it is a case of too little, too late. We ask councillors the following questions and believe the public has a right to some honest answers:

  • What role did councillors have in determining the selection criteria for the EoI’s? If none, why not?
  • What feedback was provided to councillors throughout this entire process? Was it adequate, detailed, comprehensive?
  • Did councillors ever get to read the formal applications? If not, why not?
  • If read, were councillors ever asked for any formal feedback, suggestions, preferences?
  • What was the legal advice? Since there were at least two legal opinions sought, did these opinions differ in any way?
  • Were any figures on proposed budgets presented to councillors at any stage? Were they asked for?
  • Were councillors derelict in their duties to oversee the allocation process?
  • Was the administration derelict in its duties in not keeping councillors adequately informed of all stages, requirements, budgets, and progress?
  • Why did councillors not move motions in council that would remove the ‘confidential’ status of the item?

We have repeatedly stated that transparency does not occur behind closed doors. If Cr. Pilling and others are dissatisfied with the outcome, then their objective should be to ensure that the processes are correct right from the start. If questions are asked and answers are not forthcoming, then a formal council resolution would put an end to any obstructionism that may be occuring.

It would also be of great interest to residents that councillors explain why they voted as they did. This is stated in the Local Law, yet we have no idea why Hyams, Lipshutz, Tang and Forge voted the way they did. This is not transparency and accountability. It reeks of more secrecy  and behind the scenes discussions. As with so many other issues at Glen Eira, the  pillars of good governance – transparency, accountability, – are non existent.

 

December 19, 2011

2011 In Review

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Service Performance
[17] Comments 

Exactly one year ago today (Dec. 19th) we posted the following:

“In many ways 2010 has been a tumultuous year for Glen Eira. We review the standouts and offer our reflections.

  • The reappointment of Newton for a two year period highlighted the obvious divisions within council and, we suspect, led to the third Municipal Inspector’s investigation of the past 12 years. It has also led to the resignation of Whiteside. This is obviously not a ‘positive’. As far as we know, no other council in the state has undergone three interrogations in such a short space of time. And once again, no serious ‘breaches’ were uncovered. As has been pointed out numerous times, and by several commentators, the constant in all of these investigations has been Newton himself. Councillors’ decision to therefore reappoint him for a further two years has not resolved anything. As far as we can tell the mistrust between councillors and administration, and within the councillor group itself, still remains. If Glen Eira is to have a really ‘fresh start’ then this will only be achieved with a new CEO, and a new set of directors. We note again that Glen Eira is the only council in the area to have 5 individuals sitting on over $200,000pa! The ‘fat cat’ syndrome has been maintained.
  • The C60, and planning issues in general, were dominant throughout the year. Glen Eira abdicated its responsibilities to its residents by conferring upon the MRC the power to create its own Master Plan. This should have been the role of council – not the MRC. The result is utter control to the MRC and the winky popping of several councillors and the sidelining of two others on the pretext of ‘conflict of interest’. When we consider that this ‘development’ involves over 100 hectares of land, and has the potential value of billions and billions, Council’s failure to adequately plan and advocate for the community is inexcusable.
  • In general planning terms, local papers contained story after story of residents protesting about ‘inappropriate development’. Sadly, council has not done anything to ensure that residents are adequately protected. Unlike every other council in the state Glen Eira, following its appalling Planning Scheme Review, has again disowned structure plans, levies on development, height controls, and much more. In contrast to neighbouring municipalities there has been no concerted effort to oppose ten storey developments. Instead the consistent argument put forward by council has largely been ‘blame VCAT’, ‘blame the state Government’, blame anyone and everyone else, except their own planning scheme shortcomings. We have asked the same question over and over again: if other councils can do something about Melbourne 2030, if they can have mandatory height controls, if they can have structure plans, transport plans, public realm policies – then why is Glen Eira always the odd man out? Our conclusion has to be that Glen Eira is a pro-development council, rather than a pro community council.
  • Community consultation and communication is still far from adequate, although there have been several signs of marginal improvement such as the ‘Have Your Say’ online options. Yet, even here the ‘consultation’ is skewed via the questions asked and the simple fact that residents still experience a top down approach in all issues. Instead of asking the community their thoughts about Packer Park, Marlborough Reserve, residents are presented with ‘concept plans’ that many feel have already been set in concrete – without prior discussion and debate. Another significant failure throughout this past year has been councillors’ refusal to open up its advisory committees to community representatives – or to publish agendas and insist that meetings be open to the public. Secrecy remains the dominant ethos of this council.”

Reading the above, we conclude that nothing has changed – except perhaps become far worse. Here are the lowlights of 2011:

  • C60 decision
  • Centre of Racecourse decision
  • Heritage fiasco
  • Repeated abuse of meeting procedures
  • Bullying charges and gagging of councillors
  • Increased ‘secrecy’ and decision making behind closed doors
  • ‘legal advice’ costing ratepayers tens of thousands
  • Planning and traffic chaos
  • A clearly divided council and possibly the most retrograde step of all – the reappointment of Newton

All in all, a sad state of affairs. Add to this the confusion surrounding Cr. Lobo and it’s anyone’s guess as to what the repercussions will be. Will he resign? Will he stay? Will he continue to back his new found friends?

It is however an election year. Change in personnel must occur. Glen Eira Debates will continue to focus on administration and councillors and offer our views on their performance. What is gratifying is that we continue to smash record after record. Our hits for the past week were   5,344. With your continued help and support we will make a difference in the coming year!

PS: we forgot to list the secrecy over GESAC, the ‘liquidity crisis’, and of course, the ongoing basketball farce – all of which is sure to have a major impact on budgets and rates.

 

December 17, 2011

A Record To Be Proud Of?

Posted by gleneira under GE Governance
[13] Comments 

In-fighting over city council secrecy

14 Jul 11 @ 06:00am by Alice Higgins

Some city councillors have accused their colleagues and staff of lacking transparency and gagging debate on contentious issues. The councillors say many items are being discussed behind “a veil of secrecy” to avoid public and media scrutiny. The group says staff are recommending many agenda items be considered in camera, and say some of their fellow councillors are being too compliant in allowing the matters to be discussed in secret.

Discussions can only be held behind closed doors after a majority vote of the council.

Matters debated in camera over the past three months include the $535 million Adelaide Oval redevelopment, Rundle Mall Master Plan and the State Government’s proposed three-hour lockout at city pubs and clubs.

Deputy Lord Mayor David Plumridge last month told a council meeting it could not “continue to work behind a veil of secrecy”. “Many times I think we go behind the veil of confidence when we should be out in the open,” Cr Plumridge, a former national president of the Local Government Association, told the City Messenger after  the meeting.

“When we are dealing with public money, public assets and public infrastructure, I think the public has a right to know what we are discussing.”

Under the Local Government Act, councils can discuss matters in camera under a range of scenarios, such as if they compromise council security, reveal a person’s personal affairs, or relate to legal advice.

Cr Anne Moran said there was a “level of frustration” among some councillors that matters were only being discussed in the open when it was “a done deal”. Cr Moran unsuccessfully appealed for a Rundle Mall Management Authority presentation to be held in public at a meeting last week, saying “after all, the public is paying for (the plan)”. “(Staff’s) general default position is when vaguely possible, pop everything into confidence,” Cr Moran said.

“The reasons to go into confidence are becoming more and more flimsy. “It is just so we can debate it without having to read about it in the paper.”

Cr Sandy Wilkinson said secret discussions were being used to silence councillors. “It is a way of gagging elected members speaking their views on things because they are bound by confidentiality not to say anything,” Cr Wilkinson said. “I think it is important for people to hear the conflicting and opposing views and the arguments that are put for those conflicting view.”

Cr Mark Hamilton told last month’s meeting the council had “a tendency to deal with miles too much in confidence”. “There are a number of occasions … after the matter has been dealt with in confidence, I have felt there has been no need for the matter to have been dealt with in confidence,” Cr Hamilton said after the meeting.

Cr Houssam Abiad denied the council went into confidence too often but said the public should be kept informed as much as possible. “If we are discussing things in confidence, we should be sending out a public brief saying this is roughly what happened yesterday that we can tell you so the public feels engaged and connected,” Cr Abiad said.

Lord Mayor Stephen Yarwood said it was “logical” for staff to “err on the side of caution”. “Adelaide City Council is in a unique position compared to other councils given the large number of contracts and businesses we are involved in,” Mr Yarwood said. “We are often competing with private enterprise or putting out tenders for projects and sometimes we need to do things in confidence to ensure we are getting the best bang for our buck when spending ratepayers’ money.”

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The above sounds terribly familiar – apart from the fact that in Glen Eira, control of the agenda has been handed over holus bolus to the CEO alone. He has the power to declare any item “confidential”. We’ve previously featured some figures on Glen Eira and the secret society – ie. how many items have been conducted in camera. We’ve now gone a step further and reviewed the entire year’s council meeting minutes and displayed them as follows: (1) the number of ‘normal’ agenda items; (2) the number in camera, and (3) the number of outcomes declared on these in camera items. The results are pretty amazing – nearly half of all agenda items were discussed in secret and of these less than one third was subsequently released. Please note that of the items disclosed most concerned straight forward tenders.

Date

 Agenda   Items In Camera

Announced
22nd   November

10

 8

5
8th   Nov. (spec. comm..)

3

 3

0
2nd   November

8

 8

3
25th   Oct (spec. comm.)

1

 1

0
4th   Oct (spec comm.)

1

 1 0

11th   October

10

 2

2
20th   September

14

 6

3
20th   August

14

 13

3
29th   August (Spec.comm –racecourse)

1

0

0
9th   August

8

 6

1

19th   July

 16 8

4
28th   June

20

 6

4
14 June   (Special

1

 0

0
6th   June

15

 1(urgent   business)

1
17th   May

11

 4

1
10th   May (Special)

1

 0

0
28th   April (racecourse)

1

 0

0
27th   April

12

 6

4
5th   April

13

 5

2
4th   April (spec. comm. – racecourse)

1

 0

0
15th   March

10

 2

1
22nd   Feb

10

 6

1
1st   feb

11

 3

0
TOTAL

192

 89

35
 

December 16, 2011

Basketball: Shambles & More Shambles

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Service Performance
[18] Comments 

From the minutes of December 13th, 2011 

Crs Hyams/Lipshutz

That Council

1. Note that:

(a) As the result of a fair and proper Expression of Interest (EoI) process, the use of the GESAC indoor courts for basketball was allocated to the Warriors;

(b) In the interests of maximising the use of the GESAC indoor courts by the community, Council’s preferred position is that the basketball allocation be shared between the Warriors and the McKinnon Basketball Association (MBA); and

(c) Notwithstanding the allocation referred to in (a), the Warriors have indicated a willingness to share that allocation with the MBA.

2. Allocate the use of the GESAC indoor courts to the Warriors on Fridays from 6pm to 11pm and Sundays from 9am to 11pm.

3. Allocate the use of the GESAC indoor courts to the MBA on Saturdays from 8am to 11pm subject to the MBA agreeing by January 15 2012 to provide two alternative basketball courts to the Warriors from 8am to 7pm on Saturdays to the reasonable satisfaction of the Warriors, or, if such agreement is not reached, or observed, allocate the GESAC indoor courts to the Warriors on Saturdays from 8am to 7pm.

4. In all other respects, apply the terms and conditions of the allocation referred to in 1(a) to the use of the courts by the Warriors and, if applicable, to the MBA.

5. Authorise officers to give effect to this resolution.

6. Incorporate this resolution and this report in the public Minutes of this Meeting apart from Council’s legal advice at section 3.4 of this report and in the attachments.

 

DIVISION

Cr Magee called for a Division on voting of the SUBSTANTIVE MOTION

FOR                                        AGAINST

Cr Tang                                  Cr Magee

Cr Hyams                               Cr Penhalluriack

Cr Lipshutz                             Cr Pilling

Cr Forge                                 Cr Esakoff

 

The SUBSTANTIVE MOTION was put and CARRIED on the casting Vote of the Chairperson.

PS: The following is copied from Cr. Pilling’s blog –

Comment – Only a sucessful motion is recorded according to minutes guidelines. This means that motions voted down including those that myself and Cr.Magee had proposed are not recorded – We certainly did our best in this regard.

It would be fair to say that Cr. Esakoff was of the view that Council shouldn’t be involved at all at this stage of the process.

This is a very disappointing decision and a motion that I could not support as it effectively in my view hands the allocation to the Warriors and relies on their benevolance in accommodating the McKinnon Basketball Assoc, a situation that I can’t see happenning.

As such there will be over 1400 players and families not participating at GESAC this year. This allocation is for twelve months – There needs to be a far better process in place next year to prevent this unfortunate situation occurring again

 

December 16, 2011

Basketball Fiasco & Neat Editing

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance
[5] Comments 

Below is the amended version of the post from Cr. Pilling’s blog on the ‘discussions’ re the GESAC basketball allocations. The original post has been altered (without identifying the changes) and we now have this new version of history and thinking:

“I will post details of the motion passed and comments re item 12.8 GESAC Multi-Use Courts that involves the allocation of basketball as soon as publically available which normally takes several days.

Council considered the issue over the the past two nights after reaching the 11pm time limit at the Tuesday night meeting.

The main problem in my view has been the design and oblectives of the original process. I feel the emphasis was too much on fees and ‘future marketing plans’.

I have no critisism of the way officers administered the expression of interest process but question the criteria and objectives that have led everyone to the present situation.

Like the increased childcare fee issue I feel Council has taken a too narrow economic rationalist approach at the expense of genuine community need. This really goes to the heart of the matter. There is certainly a need to review the whole process for future basketball allocations at GESAC in the new year.

please note- the posting date can be a day behind”.

COMMENT

  • Is this a mea culpa to placate Newton and Burke? – ie. no criticism of officers?
  • Questioning ‘criteria and objectives’ is surely questioning the planning/strategic direction of the whole project and who set these criteria and objectives? If officers then the blame must be laid at their feet. If councillors, then they are all implicated in the failure to meet community needs. More relevant, is the issue of councillor involvement in the creation of these ‘criteria and objectives’. Did councillors know what was happening? If they didn’t were they derelict in their duty?
  • Is it ‘intellectually dishonest’ for Pilling to amend his original blog posting without indicating that this is now a new, updated version?
  • And what does the last sentence really mean – that there still is no decision and that this will linger on until ‘sometime in the new year’?
 

December 15, 2011

Oh For An Ounce Of Courage!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance
[11] Comments 

A reader has just alerted us to the latest posting on Cr. Pilling’s blog. It concerns the GESAC basketball allocations and the failure to reach a decision after nearly 7 months of lawyers, discussions, mediation and teeth gnashing. There was another assembly of councillors following the public reception last night. As our reader stated in his comment, there is obviously great division and disarray in this ‘cohort’ of councillors. Whether or not a decision was finally made last night we won’t know until the official minutes come out.

On this point Pilling wrote: “I will post details of the motion passed and comments re item 12.8 GESAC Multi-Use Courts that involves the allocation of basketball as soon as publically available which normally takes several days.”

We find such a statement mind boggling. Why can’t the decision be announced before the minutes are made public? After all, this has only been dragging on for 7 months! Secondly, the motion in camera must have been to make the decision public – so it is technically no longer ‘confidential’. Yet, Cr Pilling obviously is a real stickler for Newton’s and Burke’s made up rules – rather than serving the needs of the community first. All it takes councillors is a smidgeon of courage and there is change, progress, and an end to autocratic rule by bureaucrats. The community deserves such councillors – not ones who regard the letter of the law as more important than the spirit of the law. There’s a name for that – pusillanimity!

 

December 15, 2011

Councillor Questions & Petitions

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

At Tuesday night’s council meeting Penhalluriack asked officers the following in relation to petitions and the guidelines which they are meant to follow. This is what happened:

PENHALLURIACK: stated that Council website said that petitions must be handed in 2 working days prior to Council Meetings. ‘why this lead time is required’ and ‘what is the legal grounds for this requirement…..(On Nov. 22nd a petition of 523 signatures was tabled. Penhalluriack read out the petition.)….’submitted 2 days (before council meeting and) signatures checked by organisers.) ‘Has this number and what number been confirmed’ (since the minutes of 22nd November stated ‘unverified number’)….’will the correct number be incorporated into the minutes of this Council Meeting under Item 5…..?’

BURKE: ‘Petitions (are submitted) in the manner which Council has determined….council accepted the minutes that you’re referring to at Agenda Item 4 of tonight’s meeting’.

PENHALLURIACK: Stated that his question wasn’t answered. Repeated the question and asked for response in writing.

BURKE: Taken on notice and repeated that ‘…petitions are treated the way council wants them treated….reading over my notes (minutes of 22nd November) …were adopted unanimously’

PENHALLURIACK: ‘I ask when did council determine this’ (and asked again that his questions be answered).

BURKE: Claimed that he had seen ‘so many names crossed out…in a way…(people)realise what they’ve signed’ (and changed their minds).

INTERJECTION FROM GALLERY: ‘I crossed out those names…..I’m challenging what Mr. Burke said’

PENHALLURIACK: Stated that he believed all the signatures had been checked by organisers and assumes as a result of the comment from gallery that the names were crossed out to ensure only those residents from Glen Eira were listed as final signatories.

ESAKOFF: ‘Mr Burke will get back to you on the detail…..’

COMMENTS:

Councillors were sent the following email upon receipt of the petition at the council service desk – “a petition for tomorrow night’s Council Meeting was delivered at council reception this morning at 8.30am, thereby meeting the requirements of 2 working days. Receipt of the petition was signed off by Callum McPherson at the front desk.

The 523 valid signatures thus far were collected within the space of only two weeks and we anticipate the arrival of many more completed forms in the coming days. These will be presented to council in due course. Residents are solidly behind the need to advertise the CEO petition”.

We’ve highlighted the phrase ‘valid signatures’ because organisers did check all names and found that some people who did not reside in Glen Eira had signed. They obviously agreed with the statement and their place of abode was only discovered AFTER they had signed. These names were later removed via the use of a 12 inch ruler and pen, marking a very straight line through these names. CLEARLY THESE CROSSOUTS COULD NOT HAVE BEEN MADE BY INDIVIDUALS FREEHAND. The copies clearly substantiate this.

Paul Burke’s ‘surmising’ of motives, as an excuse for not publishing the number of signatories in the last set of minutes, is thus not only scurrilous, but devious, deliberate and extends far beyond his official capacity. He is not there to editorialise and attempt to denigrate the authenticity of the petitioners and organisers. As come commentators have already written – did Mr Burke also check every single signature on the 6000 plus that was submitted by the Northern Memorial Pool, or the 700 plus signatures from the McKinnon Basketball Association? Again, we note, that Esakoff, Hyams and Lipshutz must go down in history as the only councillors who refused to accept a legitimate petition from constituents.

More importantly, Burke’s failure to answer Penhalluriack’s questions should be censured in the strongest terms. Councillors have every right to ask whatever they deem part of their duty and responsibility. Burke’s failure to answer such questions again reveals exactly what is wrong with the governance of Glen Eira and why the silence of all councillors on such issues is to be denounced.

 

December 14, 2011

Penhalluriack: Double Standards

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

Item: Right of Reply

Penhalluriack read his ‘right of reply’ (published in the agenda) concerning an earlier request (November 2nd) as to why numerous Officer reports had not been tabled at ordinary council meetings and why Esakoff’s statement had subsequently ‘disassociated’ Council from his statement.

TANG: raised a ‘point of order’. Stated that what Penhalluriack said contains ‘a reference to council’s actions’ and ‘as a member of council’ he wants to ‘correct’ this and also Penhalluriack’s correction of the Mayor, although ‘I do not feel it is my place to do that’. So raised a ‘point of order’ requesting ‘Right of Reply’ on Penhalluriack’s commentary where he would address issues concerning council ‘generally’.

ESAKOFF: ‘Yes you can Cr Tang. Go right ahead’

TANG:  Repeated Penhalluriack’s statement that council has no reason to disassociate itself from anything he had said and quoted the last section. ‘I think that’s a reference to what council’s done…I don’t accept that entirely…..(long servicing councillors) have received a number of the reports that Cr Penhalluriack was referring to…..there is an argument that council (should have them tabled at ordinary meetings) but that argument weighs against every one of us as councillors I don’t think it’s in Cr Penhalluriack’s ability to disassociate himself from that (since as a member of council he’d have to include himself as having breached the local government act)….’if we want a report at an ordinary council meeting we will specify that’…..I am of the belief that there is no requirement….in the Local Government Act…(also went on to say that Penhalluriack’s claim that he hasn’t received any advice from councillors is) ‘clearly a false statement….because I believe….I received a circular….which identified….where these reports went….I thought I received the same circular as every other councillor received.’

COMMENT

There is clearly a double set of standards operating at this council, especially when it comes to Cr Penhalluriack. Cr. Penhalluriack’s Right of Reply was available (for the first time ever) in the agenda papers. This means that every councillor would have had prior notice of what he was about to say. Under the ‘no surprises policy’ the Local Law also states :

“The statement must be made in writing and included in the notice paper for the next ordinary meeting of Council except where the comments referred to in subclause 238(1) have arisen since the printing of the agenda”.

Tang’s response, and Esakoff’s complicity in allowing him to raise both a point of order and a Right of Reply are unconscionable and contravene Council’s own set of laws. It is absolutely clear that there are one set of rules for Penhalluriack and another for the gang. We will expand-

  1. Esakoff is mandated to provide reasons for allowing Tang to raise a point of order and agreeing to it. She did not.
  2. If Tang has a legitimate point of order, then this should have been raised BEFORE Penhalluriack spoke and NOT AFTER – especially since he knew exactly what Penhalluriack was going to say.
  3. The point of order morphed into a ‘Right of Reply’. Why wasn’t Tang’s ‘Right of Reply’ published in the agenda together with Penhalluriack’s? Did Tang, in effect give prior notice as required by the Local Law? If not, then why was he allowed to get away with this tactic? Why did no other councillor and especially the Mayor rule him out of order?
  4. Tang’s statement is an absolute nonsense and designed to not only cloud the issue that Penhalluriack raised but to protect Newton. The facts are clear: Not all requests for reports are tabled in ordinary council meetings – that is what Penhalluriack said. Esakoff confirmed this in her statement when she admitted that reports are often presented in assembly meetings. Tang also confirmed this. Hence Penhalluriack’s statements are not ‘false’, nor ‘incorrect’, but truthful and accurate. Hence his statement that council has no reason to disassociate itself from his statement is also correct and legitimate. What is far from legitimate according to Council’s own idiosyncratic ‘no suprises’ rules, is Tang’s ‘point of order’ and then ‘Right of Reply’. We believe there was absolutely no need for it and surmise that the only motive could have been to defuse (and smear?) Penhalluriack. We also believe that this was an orchestrated tactic given Esakoff’s ruling in allowing such a statement. This entire episode again speaks volumes as to the hypocrisy and double standards operating at Glen Eira.
 

« Previous Page — Next Page »