GE Governance

Archived Posts from this Category

November 10, 2011

Hansard: Confidentiality

Posted by gleneira under GE Governance
[8] Comments 

Local government: confidentiality

Mr BROOKS (Bundoora)
— I wish to raise a matter for the attention of the Minister for Local Government. The specific action I seek is that she introduce changes to the administration of local governments to ensure greater transparency when confidential matters are considered.

Members would be aware that section 89 of the Local Government Act 1989 currently allows for councils to declare some items of their meetings closed to the public. That provision has been used in a responsible manner by local government for some time; however, there have been many relevant reports recently, centring on the City of Melbourne. I am not aware of the detail of those particular issues, but they have drawn back to my attention some concerns I have had about one of my local councils, Banyule City Council, and its increasing use of confidentiality provisions in council meetings, particularly over the last few years. Some research my office did found that in 2009 there was a large increase in the number of items considered confidential; there were 24 items. That rose to 40 items in 2010, and I understand there are already 40 such items this year, with a few meetings to go.

I think it is important that the local government minister have a look at this particular area and see whether the act needs to be changed or whether her local government office could work with councils to ensure that where there are high levels of confidentially considered items they are legitimately confidential

Alternatively it could be that information about items should be made public at a later date if the items no longer require confidential status. It could also well be that the Local Government Act 1989 could be altered so that councils have to give more information at the time they state an item is going into confidential consideration.

There is a well-known saying originally stated by a former US Supreme Court justice that sunlight is the best disinfectant. Where local government is concerned it is important that as much business as possible be transacted in the open so that local communities and the local media in many cases are able to make a judgement about what is transacted by a particular council. I ask the minister in good faith whether she could consider these requests and come back to me in due course.

NEWS FLASH: MORE SECRECY!

Another 2 CEO Special Committee Meetings have been announced. As per usual, the announcements are buried under ‘Public Notices’ on Council’s webpage. See the uploaded announcement here

 

November 9, 2011

A Little History Lesson

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

CEO: I’ll sue you

Mathew Dunckley

2 March 2005

Moorabbin Glen Eira/Kingston Leader

GLEN Eira chief executive officer Andrew Newton has threatened to sue city councillors if they don’t renew his $250,000-a-year contract.

In a letter leaked to the Leader, Mr Newton threatened to sue any councillor who voted against his reappointment, alleging a breach of the Fair Trading Act.

The letter, dated February 11 and confirmed by several councillors, is the latest in a flurry of leaks from the council.

The reappointment process stalled in December and the council voted against Mr Newton’s reappointment at a confidential meeting on February 7.

The council was expected to announce a decision to advertise the position last week but the Leader understands it has instead had to seek legal advice following the threat from Mr Newton.

In his letter, Mr Newton said all councillors had agreed to publish an advertisement declaring the council’s intention to reappoint him.

“I am advised that each councillor who resiled from that intention on February 7 has breached the Fair Trading Act,” the three-page letter stated.

“If a resolution is not put and passed reappointing me, you will leave me no choice but to act on legal advice to sue those  ouncillors personally for very substantial damages.”

The council had a number of options open to it last September when it first considered his reappointment, the letter stated.

“Given what you have said and done (since September), the only conscionable decision open to you, that does not carry unfavourable consequences, is to do what you said you would do.”

Mr Newton also alleged breaches of the Occupational Health and Safety Act stretching back to 2002.

Mr Newton claimed the council had not acted on his concerns and if he was not reappointed, he would be forced to seek further damages.

“In any objective analysis the runs are on the board,” Mr Newton said. “This is a high performance-low cost organisation. The mayor has confirmed earlier this week that there are no allegations of performance issues in relation to me.”

Mr Newton and most councillors refused to comment on the issue when contacted by the Leader last week.

Cr Alan Grossbard would not comment on the subject of the letter but said any appointment by the council should not be “dealt with under the veil of alleged threats”.

Cr Noel Erlich said he had “100 per cent” confidence in Mr Newton and criticised other councillors for not backing the chief executive officer’s reappointment.

“Look at it from his point of view. He thought he had a job and now they have turned it around inexplicably and that it is unfair,” he said. 

 

November 9, 2011

Thank God For The Cleaners!

Posted by gleneira under GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance
[6] Comments 

History does repeat itself, but this is definitely becoming an all-time farce.  The front doors leading to council chambers were again locked last night. The side doors from the car park were also locked. Only the acute hearing of a cleaner prevented a total lock out.

As per usual, the meeting last approximately 3 minutes. A little stumble by Lipshutz over accepting the previous minutes, and then the big one – motion to move in camera. Moved Lipshutz and seconded (surprise? surprise?) by Lobo.

 

November 8, 2011

News Flash: Glen Eira Minutes & How To Rewrite History

Posted by gleneira under GE Governance
[6] Comments 

The minutes of November 2nd have finally made an appearance. To be frank, we are appalled at what can only be a deliberate attempt to distort the events of that evening. The result is anything but a true and accurate representation of what occurred. We highlight the following:

  • Esakoff’s statement that she has “urgent business” and then the belated Hyams’ motion does not appear. The minutes record NO URGENT BUSINESS
  • Penhalluriack’s ‘request for a report’ is again not his original (short motion) but now a long, and UNPUNCTUATED account. This is not the first time that such tactics have been employed.
  • Penhalluriack’s ‘Right of Reply’ does not exist. Regardless of whether his attempt was cut short by Esakoff, she still accepted that he had ‘set the record straight’ and thus his words up to this point needed to be included in these minutes.

The agenda items for the CEO Special Committee have also appeared – that makes it barely 11 hours prior to the actual meeting. There are 3 items: 2 identical ones concerning OH & S and compliance with the Local Government Act and another one which reads:

“This item is confidential pursuant to section 89(2) (a) “personnel” of the Local Government Act 1989 which relates to the CEO Employment contract.”

Again, we must ask whether this is a typical case of gentle coercion, or if the cart has already been put before the horse? To discuss ‘contracts’ implies that a decision to reappoint Newton has already been made. If it hasn’t been made, then surely the discussion must first focus on whether or not the CEO position is to be advertised and ONLY THEN should discussions centre on contracts.

These minutes and the agenda items are merely the latest in a long list of incidents which make us question both the ethical and governance practices at this council.

 

November 8, 2011

Secrecy

Posted by gleneira under GE Governance
[5] Comments 

Secretive  council urged to open up

Miki Perkins

November 8, 2011

MELBOURNE City Council needs top-level government advice on whether its  meetings have become too secretive, a councillor says.

At a council meeting tonight, Jackie Watts will call on her fellow  councillors to ask the Minister for Local Government, Jeanette Powell or the  Auditor-General for advice on how the council is interpreting  the guidelines  around confidentiality.

The council has been under fire for the high percentage of items deemed  ”confidential” on its agenda, which closes the meeting to the public.

A council meeting in September was public for just 12 minutes.

Cr Watts said she wanted to get clarification on how the Local Government Act  determined which items should be confidential, because she believed the  council’s ”default position” should be one of disclosure.

”How can people make a decision about performance of council without knowing  what’s going on?” Cr Watt said.

”My reading of the act is that the default position is disclosure, and the  option is confidentiality, [but] this notion hasn’t been developed as much as it  might.”

The debate hinges on a section of the Local Government Act that says a  council ”may” deem items confidential – including personnel, industrial and  proposed development matters – but doesn’t compel councils to do this.

Cr Watt said the council did deal with matters that should be made  confidential, but some of these could be partially disclosed so that the public  knew what was being discussed.

Also before what is likely to be a highly charged meeting, are two motions  relating to the removal of protesters at City Square.

Greens councillor Cathy Oke wants the council to support the protesters’ call  for an independent inquiry into the eviction and produce a report detailing the  chronology of its actions leading up to the eviction. Cr Brian Shanahan will put  forward a proposal to consider attendance – rather than postal – voting at the  next election in 2012, which, he says, will be less open to fraud.

”I have no evidence of fraud, but anecdotally people tell me it’s easier to  have looser arrangements with a postal vote, so that needs to be tightened up,”  Cr Shanahan said.

And Cr Watts wants her fellow councillors to replace paper Christmas cards  with electronic greetings, saying cards were a waste of ratepayers’ money, and  ban the use of personal photographs on any Christmas greetings.

”The inclusion of individuals’ photographs on Christmas greetings  constitutes self-promotion,” the motion before council says.

”It is an election year but, leaving that aside, any kind of personal  promotion is inappropriate,” Cr Watts said yesterday.  ”It’s a small matter,  but it signals a larger issue.”

The council will also consider if it will support a controversial Woolworths  planning proposal for a residential and supermarket proposal in North  Melbourne.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/secretive-council-urged-to-open-up-20111107-1n3w3.html#ixzz1d3xLx7lD

 

November 7, 2011

More Farce?

Posted by gleneira under GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance
[10] Comments 

We have to again query the interpretations of Council’s meeting procedures as evidenced in last Wednesday’s Council Meeting. Before we begin, this extract from the Port Phillip Local Law is very pertinent:

Where a situation has not been provided for in this Local Law, the Council or special committee may decide the matter by resolution.

In Glen Eira the exact reverse happens time and time again. The argument invariably goes that if something is NOT INCLUDED in the Local Law Meeting Procedures, then it is NOT PERMITTED. Nothing could be further from the truth!

The failure to include any mention of rescission, dissent, and numerous other democratic protocols in our rules and regulations does not mean that they are illegal or are incapable of being exercised during a council meeting. Last council meeting saw how such omissions were used to rule against an attempt to dissent from the chair by Penhalluriack. During his ‘right of reply’ (which we’ve posted earlier) Penhalluriack was ruled out of order by Esakoff on the grounds that his statements were irrelevant. The sequence of events went like this:

ESAKOFF: Following Hyams interjection about relevance Esakoff stated “I uphold that point of order”. She asked Penhalluriack to take his seat.

PENHALLURIACK:”I ask you to test your resolution by a vote of council”

ESAKOFF: “I’m sorry”? (Said in a very quizzical tone of voice)”No that’s my ruling”….

PENHALLURIACK:  Asked that the ruling be ‘tested’ by council

ESAKOFF: Stated that Penhalluriack had already ‘corrected the record’ and ‘I think that’s been done sufficiently”

PENHALLURIACK:  Said that all organisations have the ability to challenge rulings of chairpersons. “I am now challenging the chair”

ESAKOFF: “That is my ruling”

We note:

  • Esakoff’s ruling is totally distinct from the right of a councillor to challenge such a ruling
  • The failure to include such provision in the local law DOES NOT MEAN that the ability to dissent from the chair is not available. Absence of something is not denial.
  • Penhalluriack admittedly needed to present a formal motion. However his intent was clear, legal, and should have been acted upon by Esakoff.

By way of contrast  we include below the relevant sections from both the Kingston and Bayside Meeting Procedures.

Dissent From Chair’s Ruling

(1) A Councillor may move that the meeting disagree with the Chair’s ruling on a point of order, by moving:

“That the Chair’s ruling [setting out that ruling or part of that ruling] be dissented from”.

(2) When a motion in accordance with this clause is moved and seconded:

(a) the Chair must leave the chair and any Deputy Mayor must chair the meeting; or if there is no Deputy Mayor

(b) the Chair must leave the chair after the meeting has elected a temporary Chair.

(3) The Deputy Mayor or the temporary Chair must invite the mover to state the reasons for his or her dissent and the Chair may
then reply.

(4) The Deputy Mayor or the temporary Chair must put the motion in the following form:

“That the Chair’s ruling be dissented from.”

(5) If the vote is in the negative, the Chair resumes the chair and the meeting proceeds.

(6) If the vote is in the affirmative, the Chair must then resume the chair, reverse or vary (as the case may be) his or her
previous ruling and proceed.

(7) The defeat of the Chair’s ruling is in no way a motion of censure or nonconfidence in the Chair, and should not be so regarded by the meeting.

KINGSTON

Dissenting from the Chairperson’s Ruling

36. (1) When the Chairperson makes a ruling during a meeting a member may move a motion to the effect that the meeting dissent from the Chairperson’s ruling.

(2) When a motion of dissent is moved and is seconded the following procedures must be followed:

(a) the Chairperson asks the mover, then the seconder, to speak to their motion and the matter is then further debated as required. The matter is put to the vote and the Chairperson announces the result; and

(b) the Chairperson is bound by the result of the motion of dissent – if it is passed then his or her previous ruling is changed so that it conforms to the motion of dissent, if it is defeated then his or her previous ruling stands.

(3) The defeat of the Chairperson’s ruling is not a vote of no-confidence in the Chairperson and must not be so regarded by the meeting.

Finally, mention should also be made of the fact that Esakoff again declared that she has ‘Urgent Business’ that needs to go in camera. The relevant sections of the Act were cited, BUT NO MOTION PUT OR PASSED. Hyams only at the close of the meeting corrected this little error and a motion was belatedly put and passed.

 

November 5, 2011

Where Has The Old Cr. Lobo Gone?

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

Oscar Lobo came into council all guns blazing. We’ve reported on:

  • his demand for cost benefit analysis;
  • his support of decent answers to public questions;
  • his attempt to get a ‘request for a report’ on ‘unauthorised sporting groups’;
  • his battle cry of ‘4 plus 1’ indicating, we presume, his displeasure at the ruling clique of second and third term councillors.

There have also been several clashes with Lipshutz where ‘niceties’ were hurled across the chamber. We’ve also learnt that Lipshutz was definitely not on Cr. Lobo’s list of bosom buddies. So what’s happened? Why the sudden reversal that makes one suspect that Lobo is now nothing more than Lipshutz’s pawn. Ill health might explain some of this reversal. But certainly not all. From the gregarious, outgoing, impulsive, energetic councillor determined to listen to his community, Oscar Lobo has literally turned into a shadow of his former self. He is silent on all issues. All he does is put his hand up. And, most significantly, at last ouncil meeting after what appeared to be some urgent mutterings in his ear from Lipshutz his vote suddenly changed. What this says about conviction and decisiveness in voting we will leave to the reader’s imagination. But it may say plenty about the relationship between these two men.

We’ve learnt the following:

An email from Lipshutz to Lobo asked in part whether any of the Middle Eastern banks he had worked for were involved in channelling funds to terrorist organisations.

Lobo’s response was outrage and hence his attempt at one council meeting to force discussion on ‘racism’. This of course was blocked by the four. Our comments at the time (December 14th, 2010) were: “Lobo gagged AGAIN. Seems like Oscar Lobo attempted to reveal something about an email written to him by Lipshutz in response to the former’s email to Esakoff. Hyams piped up that private emails are private and since councillors have right of reply only when the PUBLIC may draw some inference from comments/press/statements, Lobo couldn’t raise the issue. We strongly suspect that it has something to do with his earlier call of ‘racism’ that he has attempted on several occasions to put before council.”

Apparently, there is also a recording of a conversation involving Lobo that ended up in the hands of Steven Tang.

We are certainly not suggesting anything untoward but, could the sudden change in Cr. Lobo and these events be connected in any way? We simply have to ponder:

  • Is there anything in this alleged tape recording which is now being used to advantage by certain individuals?
  • Can any of these events help explain the public perception that Cr. Lobo is now tied by a umbilical cord to Lipshutz?
  • Has Lipshutz played any role here? What of Tang?

Ah, questions, questions, questions! We invite Cr. Lobo to come forth and explain any of these coincidences and most importantly, to account for the amazing metamorphosis into a Lipshutz disciple over the past 10 or 11 months. The gallery misses the energy, enthusiasm and contributions of the old Cr. Lobo. We believe that residents deserve an explanation for this amazing conversion. Residents also need to understand the rationale behind Cr. Lobo’s voting patterns given his silence in council. After all, ratepayers pay his expenses and we deserve to know why he votes as he does.

 

November 5, 2011

GESAC: Is There A Major Problem?

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

For months and months we’ve been hearing the same repetitive spin – GESAC is on time and under budget. We’ve also consistently bemoaned the fact that the Pools Steering Committee has not exactly been forthcoming with information. Secrecy has dominated all facets of this project and the committee. Finally, the utopian vision that Lipshutz has been peddling is starting to show some major cracks. Suddenly the picture is not all that rosy for the much vaunted December opening. We also suspect that money is leaking like a sieve from this project – why else the need to enter into higher purchase contracts? ‘Unforseen’ costs such as lawyers, car parks, and heaven knows what else, must surely have blown the budget to smithereens? If so ‘successful’ then why the need for the continued extensive full page advertising in 4 local papers? Yet, we have been hearing the same old story again and again. It is definitely wearing thin.

So now, at the 11th hour it looks like residents will finally get an (edited) version of at least some of what has been going on. Lipshutz is finally admitting that there ARE PROBLEMS, and that the opening date is still unclear. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that the pool doesn’t open until January next year. If council is right in its projected attendance figures of hundreds of thousands, then one month’s delay in the summer period, could impact massively on income. Longer and it could be disastrous. It really is about time that residents were provided with the full picture of what is, and has, been going on.

A good start would be for councillors to demand and receive a full, itemised account on all expenditure, where every single penny is accounted for – and income. And if there are issues and problems, then who is to be held accountable?  Is it really all the weather’s fault? the builders’ fault? The Steering Committee’s fault? The possible questionable quality of a business plan? And the most vital question – how much more money is this going to cost ratepayers that hasn’t been budgeted for?

Here’s what was said at Wednesday night’s Council Meeting:

LIPSHUTZ: Stated that committee meets monthly and discusses progress. ‘One of the biggest problems ….is the builder and the difficulties (for completion on time). Said that at NEXT council meeting there would be a ‘full report as to that issue’ (and) ‘the various activities at GESAC’. Concerns ‘that all members of the community have is the completion date’. Lipshutz expected ‘that would be discussed at next meeting’ and ‘once we know how the builder is going’ (building and plumbing issues, then they’ll be able to give some definite date as to when the pool will open)’.

PENHALLURIACK: stated that he had attended some meetings and that there was another one on tomorrow (Thursday) ‘ I’m concerned that this council has too much in confidence material (these minutes lack) ‘detail’….I endorse what Cr. Lipshutz said. It was a full and frank discussion about the progress….and I think they should be recorded in the minutes…..there are one set of minutes for assemblies…this is a steering committee and I believe we either have this in camera …..or alternatively we have full and frank minutes published”.

 

 

 

November 3, 2011

Penhalluriack: Gagged But Not Silent

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

At Wednesday night’s Council Meeting, Penhalluriack attempted to deliver a ‘Right of Reply’. He was gagged repeatedly through his statements by Hyams and co. who numerous times leapt up to protest the relevance of what Penhalluriack was saying. We’ve since received an email from Cr. Penhalluriack which contains much of the statement he attempted to make. We publish this in the public interest.

At stake here is the ability of councillors to express a viewpoint, albeit unpopular, without hindrance, without procedural rules that are used to effectively silence individuals regardless of the merits of their position, and the deliberate and obstructionist manner in which these rules are interpreted and applied. In a council where there is no Notice of Motion, and all proposed motions, amendments, rights of reply, councillor questions and requests for reports are to be announced with 24 hours notice, then it is extremely easy to undermine and even sabotage efforts to get something into the public arena. Such practices do nothing to enhance the public’s perception of a truly democratic organisation and its governance practices.

Here is Penhalluriack’s statement:

“Council Meeting, 2nd November 2011.

Councillor Frank Penhalluriack.

Councillor Right of Reply.

Glen Eira Debates has an anonymous contribution posted earlier today that says that I am a bully, but goes on to point out that I am also shut out of the debate concerning council’s CEO. There is clearly a lot of confusion within the community, and there is a  large amount of material which has been declared “confidential” and therefore can’t be included in this reply.  However I do make the following points in my own defence.

The mulch storage facility has been in the news consistently. The Age, the Leader, the Bayside Melbourne Weekly and the local blog, Glen Eira Debates, have repeatedly featured stories and comments about this facility. I want to once and for all set the record straight and present the facts:

  1. My concern over the mulch storage facility is the result of residents writing to me. “I often take my granddaughter to play in the adjacent playground and I am worried about the traffic and the dust generated by the council’s equipment”  As well I have concerns for our employees, one of whom has written, concerning the mulch getting wet, “that may increase the risk of composting and subsequently the risk of Legionella.” An employee also wrote “The hazards associated with mulch are well known”.  Yet they continued to work there without protective gear until at least the 5th April 2011.
  2. I followed up on such concerns as is my duty as early as June 2010
  3. For months nothing was happening despite my frequent requests.   On the 28th October an officer wrote “No further action proposed at this time.”
  4. My recourse to the Audit committee is my right as a councillor, and that committee deliberated on the issue, and found no conflict of interest in my presentation.
  5. The Arnold investigation was only instigated because of the audit committee.
  6. The report seemingly went through many versions. What has appeared in public is only the latest one of these versions.
  7. I have been refused details of these changes, including why they were made.
  8. I supplied various other scientific studies to all councillors and council officers
  9. The decision to close the facility was on the vote of 7 to 2, yet the focus of criticism and innuendo has been specifically directed towards me.

In order to counter the continual and misleading media coverage of these events, I have applied under FOI and common law for documents relating to this entire episode. This is what has happened:

  • I have not received all the documents I requested
  • The processes have been most unusual in that I was given incorrect information by officers which delayed the release of documents; the released documents were not presented in accordance with legal requirements; and my request for a
    review by VCAT was also delayed by incorrect advice from council’s officers.
  • As a councillor I have a common law right to documents which are part of council business. The mulch storage facility is absolutely council business.
  • Section 17 of the FOI Act obliges council to assist in sourcing and releasing the documents yet they have briefed Maddocks, a large firm of city solicitors, to resist my claim.
  • Documents not released to me are currently the basis of my request for a review by VCAT
  • What is the cost of preventing me from seeing these documents, what is council trying to hide, and is the timing of all of this a mere coincidence?

At that point the Mayor declared that what I was saying was not relevant and refused me permission to continue.

Frank.

 

November 3, 2011

Council Meeting: From Circus To Farce

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

Tonight’s Council Meeting descended from a circus into a farce. We wish to point out the following:

  • The successful obstructionism of Hyams, Tang, Esakoff and Lipshutz
  • The incredible switch of voting within 5 minutes by Lobo – but only AFTER LIPSHUTZ WHISPERED IN HIS EAR AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE FIRST VOTE!
  • The not so subtle temper tantrum by Newton

If ever any evidence was required of a divided and dysfunctional council then tonight’s meeting illustrated this fully. We apologise for the length of this post. Our reports on other items will follow in the next day or so.

REQUEST FOR REPORT

PENHALLURIACK: The request wanted a report ‘detailing why the following council resolutions…have not been tabled in Council …..(and incorporated into the minutes as ) Public Record Documents’.Hyams interrupted asking which motions.  Penhalluriack started to read out the May 2011 resolution about the mulch facility relocation. Again Hyams interrupted with a ‘point of order’  and said that ‘he needs to itemise the report….’

ESAKOFF: ‘Correct. Uphold’. Told Penhalluriack that he could speak to the motion once there was a seconder.

PENHALLURIACK: Read out 19 resolutions dating back to 2006 and finished with the May 2011 re the mulch facility. Forge seconded. Penhalluriack quoted the Newton statement that requests for reports are tabled usually at the next council meeting. Penhalluriack then cited the Local government act and that the ceo must provide council with ‘timely advice’…’that’s why I’m asking for a report at the next council meeting detailing (why the read out resolutions haven’t) ‘been tabled in council….and officially recorded in the minutes as Public Record documents.

FORGE: ‘I’ve got nothing more to add”

HYAMS: Wanted to ask Penhalluriack ‘a couple of questions’….(queried Penhalluriacks ‘time’ for when he wanted the report) ‘to come back’.

PENHALLURIACK: ‘At the next council meeting’

HYAMS: Asked if it was ‘reasonable’ to give officers longer than this given the ‘large number of reports’ that Penhalluriack had read out? Said he’d put this as an amendment if necessary.

PENHALLURIACK: Said he could change the wording to ‘spread over two council meetings’. He accepted Hyams’ recommendation’

HYAMS: ‘did you actually go through all the agendas’…’and check that those reports had not come back?’

PENHALLURIACK: ‘No I didn’t’….’I can assure you that none of those reports has come back’

HYAMS: ‘how are you so sure about that Cr Penhalluriack?’

ESAKOFF: ‘would you like to qualify that answer?’ Penhalluriack asked what she meant and then said ‘to the best of my knowledge’. Esakoff then stated that Penhalluriack had said that ‘none of them had come back’. Penhalluriack then repeated that this was the case ‘to the best of’ his knowledge’.

HYAMS: Asked Newton ‘to the best of your knowledge have any of those reports come back?’

NEWTON: ‘the vast majority of these’…. (were reports) ‘which councillors at the time received…..the accusation that these matters have not been addressed in writing….is false’.

PENHALLURIACK: ‘it was not an accusation…

TANG: interupted with a point of order that Penhalluriack was speaking to the motion

LIPSHUTZ: Another question for Penhalluriack. asked that since he hadn’t gone through the reports ‘how is it that you can say that ‘you can assure council’ that they haven’t been seen to.

PENHALLURIACK: ‘I said to the best of my knowledge’

LIPSHUTZ: ‘what is your knowledge that they have not been submitted?’

PENHALLURIACK: ‘I have been through many of them myself, and friends have been through them (and checked them as best we can)….’and if I’m wrong and they have been reported to Council then I’m happy for that report to come back to the next council meeting’. Repeated that he wasn’t claiming that they hadn’t been reported in Good Governance Guide….’what I’m simply saying is that they should be reported back to council….so they go onto the record as an official document’.

PILLING: Said that he didn’t think that Penhalluriack was making ‘accusations’ and that he was asking for ‘clarification’…’there may well be good reasons why some reports haven’t (been tabled)…I do take issue with our CEO (in using the word accusations since he didn’t think they were) and ‘I’ll ask him to withdraw’ that word.

NEWTON picked up the microphone to respond and then almost hurled it aside. He remained silent.

MAGEE: Wanted to confirm that the report on the tennis courts at Mackie reserve ‘was provided’ but he didn’t know ‘whether it was provided to council’ but was ‘certainly provided to me and through that I raised a number of issues’ that he took to councillor group’…I don’t know if that was tabled at council meeting….(remembered a detailed 7 or 8 page report)…..(said that this created some confusion in the community and therefore believes) ‘that this didn’t come to a council meeting only a briefing’…’and maybe that’s part of what Cr Penhalluriack is alluding to’….’maybe they’re not all coming to council meetings….

TANG: Point of order again about Pilling’s request for Newton to withdraw a statement about ‘accusations’ – ‘I don’t see any grounds upon which that request can be made’

ESAKOFF: ‘bear with me’ as she went to the local law to ‘check’ whether Tang was right. Eventually ‘I do uphold that point of order…I don’t see any grounds either’ Asked Pilling to withdraw that ‘question’ (request)

PILLING: ‘the CEO is at liberty to agree to that or not’

ESAKOFF: ‘I don’t see any grounds for that to be requested’ Checked with Burke. ‘There is no provision for that’. …ask you to withdraw’. Pilling withdrew.

LIPSHUTZ: Said that Penhalluriack had changed his original motion from ‘not prepared’ to ‘not produced in council’ ….that’s a different issue…..’I have seen reports in relation to matters that I have asked for….there was an implied accusation to begin with but the ground shifted…(so if Penhalluriack is asking why they weren’t submitted to council then that’s different to their ‘not being prepared at all’.

TANG: asked Penhalluriack to re-read the request for report.

PENHALLURIACK: re-read the motion…’I don’t  believe there is any accusation in that request, certainly none intended’.

TANG: wanted two meetings to ‘make it a little clearer’ for when the reports should come back…..(asking why they weren’t reported back to council is a) ‘false assertion, the assertion that they weren’t reported to a public council meeting….my recollection is that some of those reports were reported to an ordinary council meetings….(he could support the motion on two grounds that this first bit is a question) ‘what happened to those requests and whether they were reported in ordinary council meetings’…. second part involved time line)….’right that council received an answer to that sort of question…..(there are other requests for reports from tonight so Tang would be ‘comfortable’ if Penhalluriack’s request took a ‘little while longer’….’if it’s an assertion that those reports weren’t tabled’ (he couldn’t support the motion)

ESAKOFF: asked Burke’ does a document need to be in the council agenda to be a public record?’

BURKE: ‘No it doesn’t….it is mischievous to suggest that documents aren’t public records if they haven’t been on the agenda’

ESAKOFF: Agreed with Tang…’a request for a report as to why, if any, and which….didn’t come to a council agenda (and better timeline) would assist in getting that to us….my recollection…is that we have seen many reports on them, maybe not on council agendas but certainly (that we’ve got at assembly)….’on that basis I can’t support this particular request’.

HYAMS: Agreed with Esakoff and Tang ‘ would be comfortable if the request for a report was rephrased’ …’what eventuated from the following requests’….and (increase timeline). Asked Penahalluriack to ‘consider rewording’

PENHALLURIACK: ‘Wording says detailing why….many of these may well have been published in the green guide….I don’t know. It will not be very difficult….(for officers to hunt up the details since they have all the records at their disposal via computers)….’all I need to know is where they were published’….(Acknowledged that Burke is right but that since these reports have been recorded as requests in the minutes of Council Meetings) ‘therefore they should be in the minutes’ (as a ‘chain of command’)….’this has now been brought to a satisfactory conclusion’….’all I’m asking is why council resolutions have not been tabled’…to me this is innocuous….I’m happy to say the next 2 council meetings as well…..it should not be difficult.

ESAKOFF PUT THE MOTION: IN FAVOUR – Penhalluriack, Magee, Forge, Pilling AND LOBO.  Against – Lipshutz, Hyams, Tang, Esakoff.

TANG: ‘point of clarification’….’i DON’T BELIEVE THERE IS A MOTION ON THE TABLE’…..(Argued that by Penhalluriack ‘clarifying his motion’ to 3 or 6 weeks, …..not sure what the motion is)

ESAKOFF: asked Penhalluriack to clarify.

PENHALLURIACK: read out with the words ‘next two council meetings’ ‘detailing why the following council resolutions….have not been tabled in Council…..

LIPSHUTZ: since the motions reads ‘two council meetings’ there’s confusion about whether the reports should come back in two separate but consecutive  meetings

ESAKOFF: ‘are you adjusting’ that to Penhalluriack?

PENHALLURIACK: ‘I’m attempting to Madam Mayor, yes’! Redread this as asking for a report ‘in two council meetings time’. Then changed again to insert date – 13th December.

TANG: interrupted again. ‘I don’t think I’ve been clear….he keeps changing…he should just put what he said first time….(Hyams didn’t move an amendment; Penhalluriack doesn’t need to change the wording; Penhalluriack just needs to read out what he said the first time….’you can’t change the motion after everyone’s spoken to it and then summed up’….

ESAKOFF: asked Penhalluriack to repeat the motion that he first read out ‘without changes’

PENHALLURIACK; read out original motion again.

ESAKOFF PUT THE MOTION: In favour – Penhalluriack, Magee, Forge, Pilling. Against – THIS TIME LOBO, Lipshutz, Tang, Esakoff, Hyams

MOTION LOST. PENHALLURIACK CALLED FOR A DIVISION

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »