GE Governance

Archived Posts from this Category

October 27, 2011

Accountability & Good Governance?

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

In our last post we listed the ‘requests for reports’ which were still outstanding. One of these was the Lipshutz/Whiteside motion –

“That a report be prepared as to the Council depot in Caulfield Park being removed from Caulfield Park to another location in or out of the City (16th October, 2007)”.

Not only has no report ever made an appearance, but the depot still stands in the middle of Caulfield Park!  Worse still is found in the minutes of 7th April 2010 – that is, just  on 2 and a half years later, when Mr. Jack Campbell, OBE asked the following  public question –

“Could  you please report the result of the investigation requested by Cr. Lipshutz into an  alternative site for the ‘Works Depot’ currently located in the Crown Land of  Caulfield Park and what action is planned to re-locate this Depot and when is it planned that this will occur.”

The response read: “The outcome of the investigation was reported on page 52 of Council’s 2008/09 Annual Report. A suitable alternative  site that meets Council’s requirements has not been found. Councillors remain committed to continuing the search for an appropriate site.”

We  wish to note several things here:

  • As per usual, parts of Mr.  Campbell’s question remain unanswered.
  • The depot has not been  moved, no report has been tabled (as admitted by this response) and like the mulch site ‘searches’ seem to take forever until they evaporate from the public consciousness!

When one actually goes to page 52 of  the 2008/9 Annual Report we find this:

Strategy

 Action

Measure

Investigate the relocation of the
Parks Depot from Caulfield Park

Conduct Investigation

Investigation completed

“Comment: Investigation covered the need for some permanent park  maintenance facilities; the inclusion during 2009 of water tanks and  infrastructure to supply recycled water to the park via drip irrigation; and the scarcity of alternative sites within Glen Eira. Options to minimise the area required are being considered further”.

QUESTIONS

  • Where is the report? Why hasn’t it been tabled?
  • Why four years on is the depot still at Caulfield Park?
  • Why wasn’t Mr Campbell’s question answered fully?
  • Why shouldn’t residents believe that such inaction and responses are not in the interests of full transparency, accountability and/or good governance?
 

October 26, 2011

How ‘Timely’ Is ‘Timely’? Part 1

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

“As can be seen, reports are regularly requested. They are submitted promptly – usually  to the immediately following Council Meeting”. (6th  June 2011). Thus wrote Andrew Newton on why Notices of Motion are not required  in Glen Eira.

The  Local Government Act, mandates that it is the duty of a CEO to provide council with ‘timely’ advice. Further, he/she is bound to carry out council resolutions expeditiously. This does not appear to have been happening in Glen Eira. We have had discussions with the Victorian Local Governance Association who have informed us that Requests for Reports that become council Resolutions must be tabled at ordinary council meetings. We have also taken the trouble of going  through the minutes of the past 5 years in order to determine:

  • Why successfully passed resolutions for ‘requests for reports’ have NOT been tabled at Council meetings as required, and
  • How long has it taken for those reports which were tabled to be produced?

Our results on the first question are listed below. We have included the dates that the resolution was passed at council. We ask readers to make up their own minds as to how well this administration has acted in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act. We also ask why no councillors appear to have demanded that these outstanding reports be tabled, nor have they requested any explanation for their non-appearance.

Requests for Reports which WERE NEVER TABLED

Crs Staikos/Robilliard

That a report be prepared  documenting a recent incident at the Duncan Mackinnon Reserve Pavillion in which  it is alleged that a group of people entered the pavillion while unauthorised.  That this report document all correspondence related to this issue to date. (16th  October, 2006)

Crs Tang/Feldman

That a report be prepared detailing expenditure and programs directed to the Glen Huntly commercial area over the last five years. The report should also include a comparison to the total expenditure directed to Glen Eira shopping precincts in each of those years. (4TH September, 2007)

Crs Lipshutz/Whiteside

That a report be prepared as to the Council depot in Caulfield Park being removed from Caulfield Park to another location in or out of the City (16th October, 2007)

Crs Staikos/Robilliard

That a report be prepared on the operation of Village Committees in the City of Kingston. (27th  November, 2007)

Crs Staikos/Robilliard

That a report be prepared on the feasibility of introducing a ban on the sale of ‘silly string’ in conjunction with a ban on spray cans. (18th December, 2007)

Crs Spaulding/Staikos

That a report be prepared into missing sports in Glen Eira, sports clubs that are wholly or in part required to relocate because of a lack of Council facilities within our municipality and within this report the administration to investigate the development of sporting facilities also in partnership with commercial entities and in particular but not limited to Moorleigh Reserve. (5th February, 2008)

Crs Staikos/Robilliard

That a report be prepared investigating ways of expanding Council’s Australia Day celebrations. (5th  February, 2008)

Crs Staikos/Spaulding

That a report be prepared about possible improvements to Mackie Road Reserve including, but not limited to: walking path; birdie cage; playground and barbeque area improvements; and the disused land on Orange Street. (29th April, 2008)

Cr Whiteside/Spaulding

That a report be prepared on the status of the draft heritage guidelines such report to include recommendations for best practices to strengthen these guidelines so as to maintain consistency in our heritage areas. (29th April, 2008)

Crs Staikos/Spaulding

That a report be prepared on the provision of bus stop infrastructure in the City of Glen Eira (20th  May, 2008)

Crs Staikos/Magee

That a report be prepared on the granting of Tucker Ward funds to Bentleigh Recreation Tennis Club for the purchase and installation of a water tank. (15th December, 2008)

Crs Magee/Tang

That a report be prepared on the Foundation for Youth Excellence in regard to the eligibility criteria and guidelines. (17th March, 2009)

Crs Magee/Hyams

That a report be prepared on the feasibility of relocating the two tennis courts on Mackie Reserve in East Bentleigh to 31 Orange Street in East Bentleigh. (1st  September, 2009)

Crs  Penhalluriack/Esakoff

That a report be prepared into the tree clearance requirements under the Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2010; documenting the typical effect on trees in Glen Eira if the regulations are enforced; documenting the estimated cost of  implementing the tree clearance requirements; documenting the number of trees likely to be removed as a result of the requirements; and providing guidance as to whether Council could seek an exemption from applying the regulations. (3rd
November, 2010)

Cr  Tang/Esakoff

(i)  That Council prepare a report detailing the costs and feasibility of reinstalling the free mulch service previously provided at the former Council depot, then Caulfield Park and then most recently at Glen Huntly Reserve Car Park at another site in Glen Eira. (ii) The report should consider the adoption of all recommendations the Environmental Health Assessment completed in February 2011. (17th May, 2011)

 

October 25, 2011

Practice Does NOT Make Perfect

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

Dear, oh dear, oh dear. Looks like the old adage of ‘practice makes perfect’ is humbug when it comes to running a Special Committee Meeting and adhering to the rules of conduct for such meetings. To put it bluntly, poor Mayor Esakoff, got it wrong – not once, not twice, not three times, but an incredible 4 times this evening.

To begin with, Penhalluriack assumed his normal position within council.

ESAKOFF: ‘Cr Penhalluriack we’re about to start a Special Council meeting. If you wouldn’t mind leaving this part of the chamber please”. (NOTE: this wasn’t a Special Council Meeting but a Special Committee meeting). Stuff up #1

Esakoff read out the tribute to indigenous peoples, oath and apologies and then corrected herself to state :”I’m reading out the wrong agenda” (Stuff up #2). ‘Presentation of Officers’ reports’. We don’t have any tonight’ . Esakoff then went straight on to ‘consideration of confidential items’. (Stuff up #3 – Agenda items clearly stated: CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS SPECIAL COMMITTEE. No motion was put to accept previous minutes! – Hence the minutes are still ‘unaccepted’ by the Committee/Council.

Hyams moved and Lipshutz seconded the ‘confidential’ recommendation – ie meeting be closed to members of the public. Esakoff then said ‘All those in favour’. 8 hands went up – ‘Carried unanimously’. (Stuff up #4 – Esakoff did not call for further speakers, objectors, etc. as stated clearly in the Local Law – “the Chairperson must call upon any Member who wishes to speak against the motion” [234(6)].

DURATION OF OPEN MEETING – APPROX 2.5 MINUTES.

ANNUAL REPORT: Special Council meeting

Move to accept annual report: – Hyams/Lipshutz

HYAMS: ‘a very good document….good reading….highlights are at the front….sets out areas where we hope to do better which are fewer than they were last year….details performance against community plan…shows a generally good result….shows overall that this is a very strongly performing council…we have a habit of winning or getting nominated for awards for our annual eports….tells a very good story in the way it is presented…

LIPSHUTZ: ‘sets out a great story…it shows council (does a little bit more than) collect rubbish….sets out very clearly what council does….a real picture and an insight into our council…I think it’s a good report….

PENHALLURIACK: ‘it seems to be an annual report’s function is to communicate…this does it well…enquiry as to cost,….question is ….a more economic way of producing (the report)….

PILLING: Spoke of need to highlight disappointments and ‘one of the disappointments is the state of the Elsternwick Child Care Centre….(will be) ‘closing in two months time. I can’t see that mentioned in this report….should be highlighted…

MOTION PUT: Carried unanimously.

DURATION – 5 minutes.

 

 

October 24, 2011

Financial Accountability: Are Councillors Doing Their Jobs?

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

Last council meeting featured the quarterly financial report. As per usual, it was accepted in glowing terms, especially by Lipshutz. We cannot help wondering however, whether councillors even read these reports, or if they do read them, whether they actually query any of the figures and statements. We wish to highlight the following figures which are buried within this report:

Packer Park concept plan – $370,000
Building Design Elsternwick CCC – $740,000

Surely even an architect of Frank Lloyd Wright’s calibre would not cost three quarters of a million dollars? But it gets even murkier. The budget of just several months ago contained this item – “Building Design and Community Consultation for Elsternwick Child Care Centre $250k”. We therefore ask:

• Why is consultation included together with ‘building design’ – consultation is a direct Council expense – it is not part of infrastructure’.
• Why in the space of 3 months has the expenditure on this item suddenly blown out by over half a million dollars?
• Has the budget figure been ‘understated’ in order to get passed and now, suddenly, the true cost may be emerging? Is this common practice for most items – especially GESAC?

We also draw readers’ attention to this one liner – “Funding of $371K for Bailey Reserve playground relocation (Council considered this relocation as part of the approval for the car parking extension for GESAC on 19 July 2011). Please note that the funding for this relocation is expected to be offset from savings on the GESAC construction expenditure.”

Apart from the sheer staggering cost of removing and relocating – with some additional play equipment – how can this in all conscience amount to such a figure? We also note the language (“expected”) and wonder whether some time down the track councillors, if they bother to question anything will simply be told – “oh sorry, this was only expected and sadly didn’t eventuate!”

There are numerous other items in this ‘report’ which are practically indecipherable – not because one needs an accounting degree to make head or tail out of the figures, but simply the lack of detail, the lack of explanation, and the overall ‘imprecision’ of what our money is being spent on. If councils are meant to be accountable to their communities, then clear, plain English statements are essential. But most importantly, councillors must read, question, and demand answers. Are they doing this we wonder?

 

October 22, 2011

Only A Resolution Away!

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

From the Gold Coast Council Meeting of 8th August, 2011.

13.9 CENSORING OR INTERVENING WITH COUNCILLORS MAIL

LG211/-/-

RESOLUTION G11.0808.025 Moved Cr Clarke Seconded Cr Young

That the Memorandum be deemed non confidential except for those parts deemed by the Chief Executive Officer to remain confidential in accordance with sections 171(3) and 200(9) of the Local Government Act 2009.

Council notes with concern the allegations published in the local media last Thursday in regard to the intervention of e-mails being received by Councillors (including generic, divisional office email accounts) and resolves that under no circumstances can the Chief Executive Officer or any administrative staff, intervene or censor any mail, be it electronic or standard, for Councillors, as from today, with the exception of any such action or intervention that is specifically requested by an aggrieved or concerned Councillor and that the CEO report back on the appropriate process for this to occur.

That the CEO report back on the process to identify junk mail, “MIMEsweeper” and spam mail within programming software in Councillors’ computers and how to enhance such programs to allow Councillors to determine when and how to deal with offensive emails and that the current spam filters stay in place.

That all policies appropriate to the receipt and distribution of electronic mail and posted mail to and from the Mayor and Councillors be revised to reflect the above policy position. “

Vote was carried eleven (11) to four (4).

 

October 21, 2011

Shambolic, Inept & Inexcusable!

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

Our urging for the publication of the October 4th Special Committee Meeting Minutes has paid off. They are now available on Council’s website. Here is the important parts of these pseudo minutes –

PRESENTATION OF CONFIDENTIAL ITEMS

Crs Hyams/Lipshutz

That the meeting be now closed to members of the public under Section 89(2) (a) ‘personnel’ and (d) contractual’ of the Local Government Act 1989 which relates to the review of the performance of the Chief Executive Officer  

The Mayor called for a vote on the Motion. Five Councillors voted and three Councillors declined to vote.

The Mayor again called for a vote on the Motion. Five Councillors voted and three Councillors declined to vote.

DIVISION

Cr
Esakoff called for a Division on the voting of the Motion.

FOR                                       AGAINST

Cr Esakoff                              Cr Forge

Cr Hyams

Cr Lipshutz

Cr Lobo

Cr Magee

Cr Pilling

Cr Tang

On the basis of the Division the Chairperson declared the Motion CARRIED.

We are utterly speechless at the total shambles that these minutes reveal – from both councillors and from whoever is responsible for the taking and dissemination of these minutes. Again, we’ll go through this in chronological order –

  • The motion was moved in open council. Hence IT IS NOT PART OF THE CONFIDENTIAL ITEMS as stated!
  • Councillors are legally bound to vote – they CANNOT abstain.
  • Esakoff again does not know correct procedure. She cannot call for a Division until the voting has been recorded. No vote is recorded in these minutes.

COMMENT

This is getting worse and worse. We have a situation where the Chair does not seem to know the rules (even though she’s been mayor 3 times) and councillors who also do not know what is legally expected of them. As for the minute taker, perhaps he should be given as birthday present the State version of Standing Orders & Meeting Procedures?

 

October 20, 2011

Vale Democracy, Accountability – Hail Secrecy!

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

Tonight’s Special Committee Meeting continued the tradition of secrecy within Glen Eira council. After five minutes the gallery was cleared for in camera  discussions on the following agenda items – which finally made it onto council’s website this afternoon. (Please note that the minutes of the first meeting are still wafting about but not in the public domain!)

This time round, the agenda items have really outdone themselves – they read:

“That the meeting be now closed to members of the public under Section 89(2) of the Local Government Act 1989 in order to consider any confidential business.

6.1 under s89 (2) (a) ‘personnel’ and (d) ‘contractual’ of the Local Government Act which relates to the review of the performance of the Chief Executive Officer.

6.2 under s89 (2) (f) ‘legal advice’ which relates to Right of Reply.

6.3 under s89 (2) (f) ‘legal advice’ in order to consider a Council resolution.

6.4 under s89 (2) (f) ‘legal advice’ in order to consider seeking further legal advice.

6.5 under s89 (2) (a) ‘personnel’ in order to consider OH&S matters.”

Some very strange goings on here. For example:

  • CEO (re)appointment is integrally linked to the Performance Appraisal. These should not be linked and we hazard a guess that no other council does link the 2 issues.
  • OH& S has again reared its ugly head and is playing a pivotal role in the appointment process since we assume this relates to Newton’s bullying claims and the exclusion of Penhalluriack.
  • Of further concern is the multiple ‘legal advice’ items. Are they ‘separate matters’ or related? Are ratepayers therefore looking at another possible $15,000 gifted to lawyers?
  • The farce is even further accentuated with the ‘legal advice in order to consider seeking further legal advice’. This line could have come straight out of Monty Python for its sheer anarchic insanity. Oh to be a lawyer in the employ of Glen
    Eira City Council – one is laughing all the way to the bank!
  • Seems like they can’t even decide if a Council resolution is legal or not! Surely this should have been nutted out BEFORE the resolution was put and carried? We again wonder if this item is related to the legality of the first Special Committee and
    hence the need to revoke the delegation powers and substitute them with the current one? As Lipshutz and Hyams keep telling us – ‘a little housekeeping’ – except that the costs keep adding up for ratepayers!
  • And one little issue that again won’t be made public – are any of these legal eagles part of Maddocks perhaps? Will Tang actually deign to declare a (potential) conflict of interest? We remind folks that in the past he has declared a conflict of interest on a Monash matter since he is merely one out of 40,000 students who attended the university! Should we expect consistency though?
  • Finally, facts suggest that dealing with Newton becomes a very, very expensive business. We still don’t know how much the 2005 schemozzle cost ratepayers, and the figure for 2009 is roughly $40,000. How much this current saga, with all the investigations of bullying, lawyers, and now more lawyers will eventually cost, is anyone’s guess.

Before we list the night’s events we believe it is worth pointing out that all motions were passed unanimously. One has to wonder at all these sudden ‘conversions’ when the vote at last week’s meeting to create this committee was 5 to 4! It’s good to see that public displays of ‘unity’ are valued far more highly perhaps than consistency, and dare we suggest, integrity! But as they say, a week’s a long time in politics.

The night’s events (in chronological order):

  • Motion to accept (non-public) minutes
  • Kerfuffle about apologies (Lipshutz absent). Tang played lawyer and brought up a ‘point of procedure’ and insisted that a  formal motion be put to accept Lipshutz’s absence – after the meeting had again moved on. Esakoff realised her mistake and backtracked to this motion. Incidentally, dear readers, what is a ‘point of procedure’ – does it even exist? or did Tang really mean ‘point of order’? And are these councillors running so scared of legal retribution that they are determined to dot every ‘i’ and cross every ‘t’ – just in case?
  • Motion to move in camera. Gallery cleared. World record of less than 5 minutes!
 

October 20, 2011

To Phone Or Not To Phone….That Is The Question!

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

What a sad, sad, state of affairs we appear to have come to in Glen Eira! And it’s not just for this last year either. Below is a comparative table of councillor telephone expenses for Glen Eira and 2 of our neighbouring councils. Kingston figures are for one quarter – hence they would need to be quadrupled to attain an approximation of the full year’s expenditure.

GLEN EIRA

1st Dec.,2009 – 1st Nov.2010

STONNINGTON

(1 year to December
2010)

KINGSTON

July-Sept. 2010
Penhalluriack $146.- Athanasopoulos $1975.99 Staikos $857.55
Whiteside (to30th July,2010) $580.- Chandler $1616.38 Athanasopoulos $489.96
Hyams $140.- Hannon $678.64 Peulich $907.94
Magee $696.- Hindle $1731.97 Brownlees $324.54
Esakoff $69.- Nicholls $567.92 West $324.54
Lipshutz $32.- O’Shea $3202.68 Dundas $446.12
Pilling $223.- Sehr $1066.51 Bauer $916.48
Lobo $255.- Smith $4797.46 Ronke $324.54
Tang $729.- Ullin $2256.19 Shewan $685.85
Forge (From 31st August 2010) $16.-

So what conclusions may be drawn from the above statistics? –

  • Are Glen Eira councillors doing their jobs? Maybe  an investigation should be undertaken to determine why these councillors’  expenses are miniscule compared to their colleagues? It is incomprehensible  that Lipshutz should only have a mobile phone bill of ~$30 per year (and the  same for the previous year). Does this mean that no resident rings him? That councillors  as a whole receive very few phone calls? That these aren’t answered?
  • Or is the truth that these councillors simply refuse to use council provided phones for fear of possible tracking devices?  That they don’t want super sleuth officers to know whom they’ve been talking  with, much less what they’ve been talking about? That the fear of god has been  put into them following the phone business of the past?

Whatever the truth is, other councils just do not have this  problem. When others are spending literally thousands and thousands on their  mobile phones, with not a whimper from anyone, then  Glen Eira stands out like a beacon. There are  only two logical possibilities here – either councillors are not doing their  jobs as representatives of the people, or they don’t like the possible surveillance  that using council supplied phones might imply. We have been told numerous times that various councillors have directed residents not to ring them on their council  phones, nor to email them on council email accounts. Why? If there is trust,  respect, and a sound working relationship, then there wouldn’t be the need to hide conversations and correspondence.

It’s just a great pity then that when a public question on this issue of surveillance was raised at the last council meeting and responses invited from each councillor (admittedly on emails), all but Penhalluriack sat there in silence. Silence is consent councillors! And look where that’s got us!

 

October 19, 2011

Has Anything Changed?

Posted by gleneira under GE Governance
[7] Comments 

All from the Whelan Report –

The CEO allows Councillors to have access to Directors but not management staff, to protect the organisation from negative influence at that level.

The CEO and Directors are, in reality, the strategic planners for the Council. Councillors have tended to focus on the “micro” issues.

Councillors do not appreciate what constitutes good governance and do not understand their roles and responsibilities. Further in his view, they do not provide effective community representation.

Some residents met the Inspectors about particular issues, such as planning permits and child care centres. Criticism in these cases was often directed at both Council and the administration, usually about lack of appreciation of their particular concerns, together with inadequate communication and consultation processes.

 Conversely, the Councillors have difficulty in exercising their major responsibilities of strategic planning, policy making and strategic decision making.  

At a Council meeting held on 29 April 2002 the CEO raised various issues relating to occupational health and safety. He alleged that the Council had failed to provide him with a safe working environment that was “without risk to his health”.

The CEO argued that he had been harassed by a letter written by Crs Grossbard and Erlich to the Mayor and Councillors, the then Office of Local Government and himself on 4 April 2002

The Council sought legal advice from Macquarie Lawyers and Strategists and was advised on 1 July 2002 that the “…Council has breached its statutory obligation to provide a working environment that is without risk to the CEO”.

 The legal advice proposed four recommendations, including:- • adopting a Code of Conduct for Councillors in the form of a Local Law with sanctions; and • providing a process for resolving disputes between the Council and the CEO

On 9 February 2003, the CEO notified all Councillors that he had initiated a dispute between the Council and himself.

On 5 May 2003, following the elections in March 2003, the Council resolved to:-

a. “Seek legal advice concerning the Notification of Dispute and related matters pursuant to the employment contract between the Council and the CEO of the City of Glen Eira.

b. Authorise the Mayor to engage the legal firm Arnold Bloch Leibler, 333 Collins Street, Melbourne and to brief this firm immediately.

c. Authorise expenditure up to $8,000.

d. Require a further resolution of Council if expenditure is likely to exceed that specified in paragraph c.

e. Require Arnold Bloch Leibler and Council to maintain confidentiality on these matters.”

It sets out at some length, the circumstances in which the services of the CEO may be terminated. Further, it refers to a number of complaints made to the Ombudsman on 14 January 2003 by Crs Grossbard and Erlich about issues concerning the manner in which the CEO is performing his role

The Inspectors found no correspondence on Council files between the Council and ABL.

Cr Goudge said he wasn’t aware that advice on termination was to be sought from ABL but he was not surprised, given the political nature of relationships at the time and the “obstructive” behaviour of the CEO

Cr Grossbard claimed that Mr Bramham of Macquarie Lawyers from whom Council obtained the advice, was not independent because he was involved with the Council in arranging a termination agreement with a previous CEO (Ms Douglas) and was on friendly terms with the then Mayor, Cr Kennedy

Cr Erlich said that he was involved with Cr Grossbard in providing a submission to the Ombudsman concerning the CEO which, in hindsight, he was “ashamed” about. According to Cr Erlich, Cr Grossbard gave information to ABL because “… he did not get on with Andrew Newton

“There is ample evidence of repeated unreasonable behaviour directed towards one or more individual Councillors or a group of Councillors. This has created a risk to health and safety. The unreasonable behaviour means behaviour that a reasonable person, having regard to all the circumstances, would expect to victimise, humiliate, undermine or threaten.

She said the CEO was not “forthcoming in providing her with answers”.

She alleged that Paul Burke (DCR), “…is inappropriately crafting the outcome….” and “…in order to create a false impression of what has actually taken place…” .

“he is an empire builder”;

• “he does not run a democratic organisation”; and • he has developed “a culture of intimidation”.

 

October 18, 2011

Censorship In The Guise Of ‘Harassment’

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

Last Council Meeting saw one public question declared inappropriate on the grounds of ‘harassment’. We’ve just received a copy of this question. It asked:

“1. The last REC meeting determined that the situation with unauthorised sporting groups and in particular the Frisbee group would be monitored. Under this monitoring regime: (a) were any further breaches of the Local Law observed? Was any action taken as a result? (b) will council publish its findings on this continued monitoring?

2. Does any frisbee group have a current ground allocation?”

That such a question could in any shape or form be considered ‘harassment’ is beyond belief. It is every resident’s right to ask about the outcomes resulting from a council resolution. The Recreation Advisory committee recommended further ‘monitoring’ of the situation. This was accepted by Council. It is now nearly two years that constant ‘monitoring’ is in progress. We assume that such monitoring has taken up officers’ time (and hence part of our rates) and therefore it is in the public interest for any outcomes to be reported back to those who pay for such activities. Residents would like to know what ‘progress’ has been made on the issue and whether the Frisbee group that has continually flouted Local Law 326, (and which has lead to accusations of ‘conflict of interest by Lipshutz and Tang)  has in fact applied and gained a ground allocation. To label such a question as harassment again reveals:

  • the failure of this council to be transparent and upfront about costs, policies, and treating all groups and individuals equally and impartially
  • the attempt to avoid scrutiny
  • the attempt to cover up an issue which has been in the spotlight for far too long and remains unresolved
  • the continued recourse to highly questionable interpretations of meeting procedures
  • the failure to be accountable and transparent

We challenge this council to finally come clean and to provide an explanation to residents as to why

  • this question was deemed to be harassment
  • and why the public should not simply assume that the refusal to answer this question implies that council processes and ‘laws’ are used as tools of convenience whenever uncomfortable questions are asked.

Finally, the central question is: who determined this was ‘harassment’? Esakoff, or did she merely do the bidding of Lipshutz, Hyams and Tang? How many more times will this ruse of ‘harassment’ be used to deflect residents’ questions and maintain the veil of secrecy over so much that goes on in this council?

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »