GE Governance


Damning report on Glen Eira councillors but no action to be taken

Chad Van Estrop, Moorabbin Glen Eira Leader
September 23, 2016 2:30pm

A DAMNING confidential report has found Glen Eira councillors have defamed each other, come “nose to nose” during confrontations and acted as “judge and jury” to matters of infighting.

But according to a copy of the report, seen by Leader, council chief executive Rebecca McKenzie has said “no further action” would be required as a result of the findings by Frances O’Brien QC.

Ms O’Brien was appointed in May to investigate bullying allegations and advise on how to implement the council’s standards of conduct.

The report found:

Council defamed Oscar Lobo when censuring him for an alleged anti-semitic slur;

■ “Childish, silly and disparaging” email exchanges between Cr Jamie Hyams and Cr Lobo breached the councillor code of conduct;

■ An email sent by Michael Lipshutz to Cr Lobo asking if he worked at a bank linked to terrorists was “discriminatory and not innocuous.”

The report also lifts the lid on an ugly spat at a citizenship ceremony this year where Cr Hyams called Cr Lobo a “f**kwit” and Cr Lobo said Cr Hyams was a “little s**t” and the men came “nose to nose”.

Ms O’Brien said in her report that she did not accept that either of the two councillors had “ever been provoked such as to justify the conduct or language they have used”.

And she said their conduct during an increasingly unworkable four-year term “would be unacceptable in any workplace”.

Glen Eira council has blown $18,000 on the report meaning almost $45,000 has been spent this term to tackle infighting.

Leader understands senior council officers were not interviewed by Ms O’Brien for the report.

In July Ms McKenzie said the report made “no recommendations for further action under council’s code of conduct”.

But an April email from mayor Neil Pilling to councillors stated Ms O’Brien was brought in as an “independent arbiter” which meant her recommendations were not legally binding.

In the fall out from the O’Brien report an internal conduct panel has been established for councillors to report disagreements but council insiders have labelled it a “toothless tiger”.

Cr Hyams said he couldn’t comment on the contents of the report.

“There has been a process to resolve the issues and I respect that process,” he said.

Cr Lobo refused to comment on the report.

Ms O’Brien, a senior barrister with extensive experience in employment law and forensic examination of evidence, was one of three members of a commission established to examine workplace culture at Geelong Council earlier this year. That council was sacked in April.

Source: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/leader/inner-south/damning-report-on-glen-eira-councillors-but-no-action-to-be-taken/news-story/b5047432fde8a478f5697d5ae9d47419

++++++++++

COMMENT

Making matters even worse is the fact that this Council has refused to publish the report, or to take action against all miscreants – especially Hyams!

There has been absolutely no respect for public monies splurged on lawyers. We have received an email from a resident who applied to council under the Freedom of Information (FOI) legislation to gain access to the report. This was refused. The resident then appealed to the FOI Commissioner and in the past few days has received the email we present below – from ‘specialist’ lawyers hired by council to prevent the publication of the report. We can only ask:

  • How much more of ratepayers’ money are these councillors prepared to spend in order to protect themselves?
  • How much longer will bullying and vilification be condoned by these councillors?

foi

ra

Lobo arrived approximately 15 minutes late and apologised for his lateness. We also assume that he had not been present at the pre-meeting Councillor Assembly since he asked for the relevant papers. Whether this was his choice, or he was told not to attend, we do not know.

The first sign of trouble started with Item 9.16 (Caulfield Racecourse) when this was moved up earlier on the agenda. Following Delahunty, Lipshutz and Hyams speaking on this item, Pilling called on Magee. Lobo claimed that he had put his hand up first. Pilling said he only saw Magee and Lobo said ‘okay’ and that Magee could speak first. Magee expressed his concern about Mike Symons and the Minister’s letter to Trustees, requiring them to resign as well as tenants resigning as well. (The letter will be in the minutes). Lobo acknowledged Penhalluriack’s work on the racecourse and ‘many others’. Said that he knows how ‘frustrated’ councillors were when the councillor trustees ‘were not reporting to us’ what has happening. Said he didn’t know what ‘criteria was used’ for the appointment of trustees. Said ‘I appreciate Cr Magee’s stand’ of setting up his tent and ‘going home to sleep in the night’ because ‘he was scared of foxes’.

MAGEE: rose with a point of order not ‘just on relevance but also fact’. Went on to say that ‘Cr Lobo has told a blatant untruth’.

LOBO: ‘I was there in a parked car at 11 o’clock’ and it was his word against Magee’s.

Pilling asked Lobo to ‘withdraw’ his comment. Lobo insisted that Magee ‘has told a fairytale’. Lobo then responded to Pilling that ‘for your satisfaction I will’ withdraw the comment. Finished up by saying it was ‘disappointing’ that Pilling approves of horseracing.

Next bout of altercation occurred over Item 9.3 – the Claire St potential appeal to the Supreme Court. Magee moved motion and spoke about his ‘liking’ for the Planning Scheme. Said in part that ‘while this is our planning scheme it is incumbent on anyone who sits in this room to accept that this is what our residents want’. Went on to say that ‘it is disappointing that new councillors’ come in and ‘say I want to change it’. ‘I think that’s wrong’ because ‘you have to have consideration for what’s put in front of you’ and ‘what your community has said what they wanted’.  ‘It’s not all about you. It’s not all about what you want’. It’s ‘what our community wants’ and they are ‘very clear’ following the reviews and consultation. In the past the community ‘told us they were happy with this’ but ‘wanted a few extra things’ like mandatory height limits and ‘greater setbacks’ and ‘that’s exactly what we put in’. Said that with the zones ‘we got exactly what our residents were telling us they want’. Said that with the building boom and the fact that VCAT now doesn’t apply council policy like it used to, that is ‘what brought on the’ planning scheme review. (We will report in full on this item in the days ahead).

Hyams, Lipshutz and Sounness then spoke. (again we will report on this later).

LOBO: said that when Akehurst ‘did the drawing’ for the new zones,  and ‘I was told off’ by Lipshutz, that Akehurst is an architect and ‘we have another now’ in Ron Torres. Said that Claire St was ‘designated for development because of the McKinnon zone’ and the railway station. Height was ‘not the point. The sky was the limit’ and he was told this by Magee. Went on to say that in the assemblies they ‘agreed’ that the zones ‘would not change’ and that VCAT ‘will approve’. ‘Now the wheel of fortune seems to be going the other way around’.

LIPSHUTZ: got up with a point of order that Lobo should stick to the ‘facts’ and he claimed that it is ‘not true’ that they were told that ”VCAT would approve’ the new zones’.

PILLING: said that ‘I understand that is the case’ and asked Lobo to withdraw his comment.

LOBO: ‘withdraw because the way you are playing partial’!

HYAMS: Lobo should ‘withdraw that comment because it is defamatory’.

LOBO: ‘shusshh’

PILLING: again asked Lobo to withdraw his comment and to ‘comment on the issue at hand’.

LOBO: withdrew his comment and told Pilling to ‘make your decisions properly’. Pilling responded ‘I will’. Went on to say that ‘Claire St was supposed to be the sky’s the limit’

HYAMS: said it was never the ‘sky’s the limit’ and there’s a height limit of 10.5 metres in Claire St. Pilling reiterated the 3 storey height limit.

LOBO: said that to challenge Claire St is a ‘waste of time, money’ as is the money spent on the open space for Nina Court. If Council was ‘really serious’ then they ‘should never’ have bought that ‘Caulfield house’. ‘a waste of money’. Said he wanted to ask the CEO a question – ‘How much does it cost for reports’?

CEO replied that that ‘it would depend’ on the ‘nature of the report’ and how much time had to be spent on it. Lobo then asked if ‘for the next meeting could we have a break down?’

PILLING: ‘as the ceo has said, it is virtually impossible to identify every report’ and that ‘I think the request is not practical’.

HYAMS: on another point of order saying that if Lobo wants officers to do this work then he ‘needs’ to do a Request for a Report and then councillors would decide if they wanted that report. Lobo said he doesn’t want the report because ‘it is costing money’ and in this council ‘going to the toilet’ elicits ‘a report’.

LIPSHUTZ: point of order saying that Lobo’s comment is ‘totally inappropriate’ and that he ‘should be asked to sit down now’ and his reference to toilets is ‘absolutely disgusting’ and ‘outrageous and he should be told to sit down’.

PILLING: cited section 236 from the Local Law saying that when a councillor speaks it should be relevant to the motion and that this is about Claire St. Said ‘I will be giving you one more opportunity to talk to this motion’ or “I will be asking you to sit down’. ‘Last chance’.

LOBO: said he needed to ‘ask a question from Ron Torres’. Said he has forgotten the answer that Torres gave him ‘about 5 months ago’ why when residents object ‘do you send those objections first to the builders?’ ‘Who is paying you money? The residents’.

PILLING: another point of order under Section 236 of the Local Law. Under the section ‘defamatory’. Asked Lobo to withdraw his comment and to sit down.

Lobo refused to withdraw his comment. Hyams then made another point of order saying that he ‘hoped’ that Lobo wasn’t saying that Torres ‘was being paid by developers’ and that what he meant was that since residents paid Torres then ‘he should have care for residents’.

PILLING: said it ‘was unclear’ about the ‘accusation’ and asked Lobo to ‘clarify the comment you have made’.

LOBO: repeated that ‘I am sitting down’. So ‘take me to a Code of Conduct and spend another $50,000’

Pilling then asked for other speakers.

All quiet on the Western Front until the next item on the Better Apartments. Lobo put his hand up to speak next and Pilling ‘cautioned’ him saying that he has powers under the Local Law to remove him from the chamber if he ‘disrupts’ the meeting. Pilling wants him to ‘participate’ but to ‘stay relevant’ to the item. Said he is ‘loathe to use it’ (ie removal). Lobo didn’t speak in the end.

 

Again quiet until Item on the Open space implementation. Delahunty moved motion and spoke first and refuted Lobo’s earlier claims that open space is a ‘waste of money’. (full report to come). Lobo then asked Pilling if he could ask a question ‘in defence’? Pilling said he would give him the ‘opportunity’ Hyams spoke next.

LOBO: said that he will ‘respect’ Delahunty ‘not as a member of any party’ but for her intelligence, ‘and passion’. Delahunty walked out at this point. Lobo continued with ‘Just do it’ (quoting Delahunty earlier) and saying that ‘you can’t just do it’ because ‘you will have problems’ later. Esakoff and Sounness then ‘filled in a minute’ until Delahunty returned to ‘sum up’.

Pilling then asked Lobo to leave the chamber under Local Law 244 saying that he will ‘not tolerate any more destructive behaviour’. Lobo responded with ‘You can’t ask me to leave’ and Pilling replied “i am asking you to leave’. Lobo stated ‘I will not go’. Pilling then asked Jones to ‘escort’ Lobo from the chamber. Lobo remained seated in his chair and said ‘You should announce to people what you have done to me’. Pilling then in a much louder voice said that ‘I have made a decision. I have the power and I’m using it’. A shouting match between Pilling and Lobo ensued with such comments as ‘you are not a fair man’; ‘get the police’, ‘this is not your council’. Pilling then said ‘I’m adjourning the meeting until the police come to escort you out’. Lobo kept calling out and Pilling told him to ‘please be quiet’. Lobo said he was speaking for the ‘residents’. Jones approached Lobo and the latter told him not to speak to him. Lobo repeated several times ‘get the police’ and ‘show me democracy’; ‘very mean and cruel’; ‘spoil my family life’ and ‘because of all of you I’m getting a divorce’. To Pilling – ‘you are a puppet’. ‘Bring handcuffs’. Councillors in the meantime had got up and left the chamber. Lobo walked out and the meeting resumed after a few minutes.

A very brief report on tonight’s marathon council meeting. It will go down in history as the lowest point ever reached by this council. What occurred was embarrassing for all concerned as well as uncalled for in our view. Following numerous cautions from Pilling and points of order from Lipshutz and Hyams concerning comments made by Lobo, Pilling resorted to Section 244 of the Local Law and asked Lobo to remove himself from the chamber. The clause states –

The Chairperson may ask any Authorised Officer or police officer to remove any person from a room in which a meeting of Council or a Special Committee is being held, if the Chairperson determines that the person is behaving in an improper or disorderly manner and so interrupting the orderly and lawful process of the meeting

Lobo refused and insisted that the police be called. The meeting dissolved into a shambles and was adjourned. Whether police were actually called we do not know since after 5 minutes of mayhem, allegations, and general confusion, Lobo left the chamber. The meeting then resumed.

We will report on this in full so that readers can judge for themselves what kind of governance and bullying exists in Glen Eira and how dysfunctional this council really is!

fairy-tales

We’ve received this email from a resident, expressing what we believe is probably a fairly common reaction to the election conundrum – who to vote for?

Good morning, 

With no shortage of evidence pointing to the incompetence of our council, the big question is…. So who do I vote for? 

For the average person it is impossible to become adequately informed about who stands for what. 

Are there any candidates with integrity or honesty? Will anyone actually have the will power, knowledge and stamina to repair our failed planning scheme, when the council blames VCAT and VCAT simply insists it is ruling according to the laws of the state?  

Quite frankly I am convinced our local government is a complete joke, without the laugh. We have experienced first-hand the incompetence and lies coming from their planning and enforcement team who are paid for by my rates. A 3 year saga that left us high and dry. 

So now it is election time and I want to make my vote count….. yet sadly I think it makes no difference whatsoever. They are all as bad as each other. 

Please tell me I’m wrong…

We do sympathise, whilst acknowledging that sorting the wheat from the chaff, the stooges from the genuine candidates, is going to be a herculean task, especially when each candidate talks in clichés, generalities, and is full of potentially hot air promises.

Our position is clear. After more than a decade of in fighting, incompetence, and abuse of power over and over again, it is definitely time for a change. These councillors have done nothing to advance planning, to secure sufficient open space, and to operate in a transparent and accountable manner. Nor have they acted on community aspirations that mean something or done this in a timely manner. Traffic, over development, open space, heritage, community gardens, tree protection are just some of the issues left untouched by this group of 9 councillors.

So now is the opportunity to change all this. And it can be changed with your vote. That means ensuring that each and every one of the incumbents are not re-elected nor those to whom their preferences are directed since the chances are that these are merely their stooges. Thus we urge all residents to MAKE YOUR VOTE COUNT and elect a council that is new, visionary, and committed to listening and working with the community and not against it. Ask each candidate the following:

  • Whether they will commit to a full and immediate review of the zones
  • Whether they will commit to changing the meeting procedures so that residents can freely ask questions and present their views
  • Whether they will commit to having community reps on all advisory committees and which are open to the public
  • Whether they will commit to online broadcasting of council meetings
  • Whether they will commit to residents having a direct input into budget priorities
  • Whether they will commit to insisting that all officer reports include costings, timelines and objectively present the pros and cons for each proposal

If the responses are nebulous, qualified, or mumbo-jumbo, don’t vote for them! The best example we have of this last statement comes in the form of Ho’s election flyer! At least he has the grace not to mention his opposition to ‘over-development’!!!!!!

EPSON MFP image

EPSON MFP image

esakoff

Here is part of a screen dump from a company that Magee used to work for. Note the email –

untitled3

Next, please note the IPs and email addresses attached to the following comments –

jmjm2jm3jm4jm5jm6untitled2

There are countless others from this and different emails. Our final selection however says it all!

magee

 

Over the years we, and our commentators, have been accused by various councillors of being ‘cowards’, lacking ‘integrity’ and ‘honesty’ and the worst crime of all ‘hiding behind anonymity’. Yet these very same councillors certainly do not practice what they preach or pretend to disavow. The number of anonymous comments that have been posted by these same councillors on our blog is astounding. We have had a great time laughing our heads off at how these councillors spend time attacking each other and lying whilst remaining ‘anonymous’.

Hyams is the perfect case in point. Not only has he lied in the chamber with his denial of calling a resident a ‘whining bitch’ , but he has lied via his innumerable comments on a blog site that he purports to so seldom read! It would seem that the Councillor Code of Conduct demanding honesty, integrity, and treating residents with respect applies to everyone else, but not to him!

Below we feature some screen dumps that prove conclusively what kind of liar and hyprocrite this man really is. Please ask yourself if this is the calibre of a man that you want as a councillor when you go to the polls in a few short weeks.

First off we draw readers’ attention to the ISP (at the time) of the organisation that Hyams works for. Please take note of the underlined numbers.

210-23-136-125_page_1Now compare these numbers with what Hyams has written under his own name and ‘anonymous’ –

jh4

Compounding Hyams’ lies we then have this little doozy –

jh3

All of the ‘positive posts’ about Esakoff are from Hyams!

There are literally countless other screen dumps that we could have uploaded – many coming from council computers, from mobiles, from home computers, and all attacking other councillors.

We present the above because it is election time and because we believe that when we elect individuals they should at the very least be people who will conduct themselves with integrity, honesty and a desire to work for the community. Hyams does not fit this bill!

With the new Public Questions format introduced recently, the wider community  literally has no idea as to what the public question was, nor the answer, if the questioner was not present in the gallery at the time the item comes up in the agenda. Given that public questions occur at the end of the meeting (and this can be hours and hours later) it is no wonder that some residents might simply give up and leave or simply cannot abide the thought of 2 to 2 and a half hours of woeful arguments and plenty of hot air and grandstanding. Nor do these new protocols take into consideration that someone might be ill and unable to attend.

Councillors Hyams, Lipshutz, Esakoff, Pilling,and Ho have therefore successfully limited public access to resident views and queries since the questions and responses are not recorded in the minutes. We’ve however been able to subvert this anti-democratic practice by publishing one of these questions! Please note the answer and make up your own minds as to its veracity and faithful ‘reporting’ of events.

public-question_page_1public-question_page_2

img001Scanned Image 122670000-1Pages from Community-Satisfaction-Survey-2016

« Previous PageNext Page »