GE Governance

Archived Posts from this Category

October 12, 2016

Consider This When You Vote!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, Election 2016, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[16] Comments 

We’ve uploaded several pages from a secret report by Charter Keck Cramer. The report was obviously commissioned well before July 2013 (the date the report was completed). The report is courtesy of the Department and its objective was to use GLEN EIRA AS A MODEL for the introduction of the new zones. Thus Council was well and truly up to its eyeballs in secret meetings with Guy, and the department in order to be the ‘first’ council in the state to introduce the new residential zones.

What is significant in the following pages (obtained under FOI) is:

  • The emphases on state revenue via property tax and stamp duty
  • Job creation for the construction industry, and
  • Housing supply

There is not one word in this analysis regarding impact on existing neighbourhoods or the deterioration of residential amenity. No mention of required infrastructure; no mention of open space and no concern about transparency and community consultation. Even more astounding is that Glen Eira claimed to have 85 years worth of development potential and 89 years worth once the commercial areas were included! Notes of meetings between the parties reveals that ALL COUNCILLORS were in favour of the introduction of the horrendous zones.

The crucial questions here are:

  • Were all councillors provided with a copy of this report? If so, what questions did they ask? If not all councillors were provided with the report, then why not?
  • Exactly what were councillors told about the secret meetings between Guy, Newton, Akehurst and Hyams?
  • What role did the Liberals on Council (ie Hyams, Lipshutz, Esakoff, Okotel, ‘Pilling’) have in endorsing this secrecy and collusion with Matthew Guy and his bureaucrats?

As we have repeatedly stated, there is no excuse for responses to public questions being lies. There is no excuse for the failure to inform the community as to what is about to happen. There is no excuse for appalling planning and definitely no excuse for failure to implement planning controls for the past decade. All current councillors are responsible for these failures and the damage they have caused to countless residents.

pages-from-charterkeckcramer-report0001_page_1pages-from-charterkeckcramer-report0001_page_2

 

October 8, 2016

Why They Must Go!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, Election 2016, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Planning
[22] Comments 

PS: An update on this afternoon’s Tucker Ward ‘Meet the Candidates’. Those present were: Magee, Lobo, Taylor, Searle, Brewster, Mackie, De’Arth.

ABSENT: Hyams, Okotel, Bonney, Elliott, Karlik, Cade and Andonopoulos – the last with apology due to family wedding.

We have reported on planning decisions made by these councillors over the past 4 years. (See: https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2016/09/28/for-the-record-2/). This post we concentrate on the area that has bedevilled this council for over a decade – governance and how community aspirations have been continually ignored and/or thwarted.

THE INTRODUCTION OF THE RESIDENTIAL ZONES

Councils had until June 30th 2014 to introduce their individual versions of the new residential zones. Glen Eira was the first, with Guy’s announcement on August 5th 2013 followed by official gazetting on 23rd August 2013. Countless other councils held extensive community consultations. Glen Eira did not. Even those councils which applied for the ‘fast track’ ministerial intervention under Section 20(4) of the Planning and Environment Act, tabled their intentions and the relevant details of the proposed zonings at formal council meetings. This was then voted on by councillors in an open and transparent fashion at their respective council meetings. Thus their citizens could see what was to occur and had the opportunity to at least contact their representatives. Glen Eira did not, thus being the only council in the state which did not provide its residents with any information and any opportunity to voice an opinion.  There was no council resolution and no official ratification of anything. Another example of decision making behind closed doors!

Add to this various public questions dating from July 2013 asking when council would begin its community consultations and we find responses that were blatantly untrue and designed to mislead and deceive. There was never any intention to alert the public or consult with them. We know this because as far back as 2009 Akehurst had written an officer’s report that said there would be no community consultation if the zones, as they were proposed in 2008 were ever to come in. We also know that Guy, the department honchos, Hyams, Newton and Akehurst had been busy meeting since at least April 2013 and spending taxpayers’ money on getting legal advice as to how best to thwart any potential legal challenges and, we assume, whether or not a formal resolution had to be tabled at council meetings. The intent was always to avoid public consultation and accountability. We, the residents, were irrelevant to the devious and secret collusion going on between Matthew Guy, the department and council.

The following comes from the documents obtained under FOI and reveals the full treachery that all the present councillors allowed to occur and some positively encouraged –

image0059

NOTICE OF MOTION & PUBLIC QUESTIONS

Notice of motion is an essential element of good governance  and community representation since it allows a councillor (once seconded by another councillor) to have an item placed on the agenda for full and open debate and decision. Glen Eira is the only council in the state that has repeatedly refused to grant this right to councillors – and therefore residents who request a councillor to initiate some action on an issue. It has come up at least twice in the past 4 years and been defeated by the conservative faction led by Hyams, Esakoff, Okotel and Lipshutz.

Adding insult to injury, the recent changes to the public question format means that unless the questioner is present in chamber the response will not be recorded in the official minutes. The result? No public record that will provide interested residents with any idea of what council’s position is and what the issues that concern some residents are. With no public record there is no accountability and certainly no transparency.

Those councillors who vetoed these democratic rights are: LIPSHUTZ, HYAMS, ESAKOFF, PILLING & HO

GUNS IN THE PARK

Readers will remember the furore created by this secret (and potentially illegal) in camera vote that permitted private security guards to carry guns in local parks. Those responsible for keeping this secret and deciding that this was in the best interests of the entire community were – PILLING, ESAKOFF, HYAMS, LIPSHUTZ, OKOTEL, MAGEE

FROGMORE

When Council had the opportunity to proceed to a Panel Hearing over the application to build a Jewish Care aged care home at Frogmore, the proposed heritage amendment was abandoned. This meant that the developer  moved in overnight and demolished the building and removed nearly 90 trees – 4 of which were categorised as ‘significant’. Over 1000 signatures on a petition had requested council to implement heritage protection and another 200+ submissions had gone in anticipating a formal panel hearing where residents would get the opportunity to have their say and to present their well researched evidence. Esakoff and Delahunty conveniently declared a ‘conflict of interest’ and Magee was absent. Pilling used his casting vote to ensure that Frogmore was no more. Those who voted against going to the panel were: PILLING, HYAMS, LIPSHUTZ. Thus 3 councillors (a minority) thwarted the stated wishes of over a 1000 residents!

CONSERVATORY

Two expensive community consultations, plus several council resolutions, made it clear that the conservatory at Caulfield Park be maintained and restored. Not satisfied with the results, there was another go to get rid of the building. This time it worked. Those councillors who ignored community views, their own previous resolutions and succeeded in removing the structure were: HYAMS, LIPSHUTZ, ESAKOFF, DELAHUNTY, PILLING

CONCLUSION

These examples are only some of the outrages that have occurred during this council’s term of office. If residents want more of the same, if they want to be continually ignored and told fairy tales, if they want more internal strife and division, then they should retain the incumbents. However, if residents feel that Glen Eira must change and improve their overall performance in so many areas, then these sitting councillors have to go.  Most of them have been there for 8 years. They have achieved very little except to alienate countless residents, each other, and cost ratepayers a fortune in legal fees  – which by the way is far from over given this statement from the 2015/16 Annual Report just published –

Contingent liabilities

(a) Arising from legal matters

Council is presently involved in several confidential legal matters, which are being conducted through Council’s solicitors.

As these matters are yet to be finalised and the financial outcomes are unable to be reliably estimated, no allowance for these contingencies has been made in the Financial Report. (page 214)

Open and transparent governance is dead in Glen Eira thanks to those councillors named above. Glen Eira desperately needs new councillors who put community, honesty and fiscal responsibility first!

 

September 28, 2016

The ‘Right People’ – Rosstown

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, Election 2016, GE Governance, GE Planning
[7] Comments 

The Lib/Lab show is also on in earnest in Rosstown. Labor too pushes the boundaries with its preferences but nowhere near how blatant the Libs are in Tucker. Determining who is truly ‘independent’ is difficult given that the phrase ‘inappropriate development’ is on practically everyone’s lips – as are countless other slogans.

What irks us most is the cry to ‘keep rates low’ – especially from incumbents across the board. The truth is that Glen Eira for the past decade has had one of the highest annual rate increases in the state – 6.5% apart from one year when conscience got the better of them and they voted in an increase of slightly less. Were it not for the current rate capping, then the original proposal was that the 2016/17 budget would also include a 6.5% rate increase.  Then of course, we need to consider the financial management and oversight provided by these incumbents. Council is now back up to the huge debt of $24 million, yet still splurges on mega palaces and still cannot bring in projects under budget and on time.

Our position remains unchanged. If residents want a council that listens, that acts in concert with its community, then there is no option but to replace all incumbents.

Here is the Rosstown candidate information in full (uploaded HERE) and some individual statements –

npddkar

 

September 27, 2016

The ‘Right People’

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, Election 2016, GE Governance, GE Planning
[21] Comments 

leader

When it comes to winning an election it would appear that all notions of ‘fair play’, and individual integrity go out the window.  Dirty tricks dominate and collusion makes for some strange bedfellows. Promises are nothing more than fairy tales or straight out fibs. All of this is made crystal clear with the publication of the ‘candidate statements’ that raise the question of who is the ‘right person’ and how much they should be trusted with the stewardship of Glen Eira.

In this post we will concentrate on Tucker Ward and ask readers to note:

  • How the Libs have engaged in highly dubious legal and (un)ethical tactics by publishing their defacto preferences in these statements – something that the legislation forbids!
  • How Magee (the once Labor) man is so anxious to be re-elected that he has joined this circus and preferenced the brother and sister act for the Libs. We are told that he intends to ‘rejoin’ the Labor party after the election. We sincerely hope that they show him the door in much the same way that the Greens have excommunicated Pilling.
  • Statement after statement is either meaningless slogans or bare faced lies. For example, Okotel claims to have ‘fought hard against inappropriate development and striven to preserve the character of Tucker Ward’. Beside the point that she was previously a Rosstown Ward councillor and not Tucker, her ‘fight’ to preserve ‘character’  in Tucker does not bear up to scrutiny when we find she has voted in favour of permits for the following (and we only concentrate on her voting pattern in Tucker) –

8 Railway Crescent, Bentleigh – 3 storeys, 10 units

451 South Road, Bentleigh – 5 storeys, 12 units

261 Centre Road, Bentleigh – now 5 storeys, 31 units

674 Centre Road, Bentleigh – 3 storeys, 8 units

730 Centre Road, Bentleigh – 4 storeys, 21 units

115 Poath Road, Murrumbeena –  6 and 7 storeys, 39 units

22-26 Bent St, Bentleigh – 4 storeys, 36 units

670 Centre Road Bentleigh – 5 storeys, 50 units (later increased to 67 units & part of Brown’s Road)

14-18 Bent Street, Bentleigh – 4 storeys, 55 units

817 Centre Road, Bentleigh – 3 storey, 24 units

23 Bent Street, Bentleigh – 4 storeys, 34 units

10-12 Bent Street, Bentleigh – 4 storey, 35 units

15-19 Vickery Street, Bentleigh – 3 storey, 39 units (VCAT gave the developer his 4 storeys and 47 units)

So much for ‘preserving the character of Tucker’!!!!!!! We also remind readers that her record on tree protection, notice of motion, etc. is equally abysmal and that her presence in council was perceived by many as merely Esakoff’s clone!

We’ve uploaded the full document for Tucker Ward HERE but thought we would also highlight the following statements! Many should at least be good for a laugh! (Click to enlarge)

 

September 25, 2016

More On Hyams!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, Election 2016, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[17] Comments 

Several weeks ago Hyams & Delahunty were interviewed on the JAir radio station. Below we present the opening section with Hyams. The audio goes for 5.24 minutes.

As per usual with Hyams he is not averse to making statements that are misleading, incorrect, and blatant misrepresentations of the truth. Here are some examples:

HYAMS: What’s going on in Glen Eira is actually a lot less than what’s been going in some of the neighbouring municipalities

COMMENT

Dead wrong! We have compiled data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) on building permits for the past 5 years and uploaded the 2015/16 data HERE so that readers can check for themselves. What residents need to realise is:

  • Of our ‘neighbouring municipalities’ Bayside, Kingston, Port Phillip, and Monash have had less development over the past 5 years! The only ‘neighbours’ with greater numbers are Stonnington and Boroondara – and there are some good reasons for this!
  • Glen Eira has 2.8% zoned Commercial. Stonnington according to the recent State of Play Reports has 8%, Boroondar has 3.6% and Port Phillip has 12% plus this latter municipality being in the unique position of being ‘capital city’ zone and a tourist hub. In these municipalities the majority of new development occurs in these commercial areas, whereas in Glen Eira, the overwhelming majority of new dwellings are in our quiet residential streets – thanks to the zoning and the small percent zoned commercial.
  • The number of houses built in Glen Eira is small compared to many other municipalities – thus development in Glen Eira is primarily apartment blocks
  • Other municipalities are double or triple the size of Glen Eira which already has the highest density per kilometre in the Southern Region. The impact on density and liveability is thus far greater in Glen Eira than say Kingston.
  • Victoria in Future 2016’s projections (UPLOADED HERE) indicate that from 2011 to 2031 Glen Eira will require an additional 11,800+ new dwellings to meet its population needs. The figures on building permits show that in Glen Eira more than half of this target has been reached in the space of 5 years AND these figures DO NOT INCLUDE THE 1500+ UNITS FOR THE CAULFIELD VILLAGE AND POTENTIALLY ANOTHER 4000+ FOR VIRGINIA ESTATE. At this rate, Glen Eira will meet its ‘target’ not in 2031 but in 2020. Then what?

Please consider the following table carefully. The figures in parenthesis represent the number of houses with building permits for that year.

building-approvals

There are plenty of other statements that amount to arrant nonsense and we believe designed to deliberately mislead:

  • Minimal change areas have had 50% site coverage, 25% permeability, and 4 metre setbacks since Amendment C25 which was gazetted in 2004. The only thing the zones have changed is making 8 metres mandatory and 2 dwellings per site – and not as Hyams so inaccurately portrays that these ‘additional’ protections are a result of the zones! What he also neglects to mention is that even this ‘protection’ is not sacrosanct if the size of the lot happens to be larger than its surrounding blocks of land. In Glen Eira at the time of the introduction of the new zones there were 1,795 lots of land in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone which were greater than 800 square metres. (Source: DEWLP document procured under FOI)
  • There are no setbacks to the Residential Growth Zones apart from ResCode. They have been there since time immemorial and again have nothing to do with the zones!
  • Developers buy up multiple blocks because they can squeeze more units on and this is explicitly encouraged in the Planning Scheme!
  • Glen Eira does not have 78% zoned as Neighbourhood Residential – it has just under 70%

But the best line must be – It’s not like we changed the zones to allow more development without telling anyone…..

Really? Is that why the zones were introduced in secret and public question responses were nothing but lies and all such responses ‘signed off’ by councillors without a single murmur?

There’s much, more more that could be said on Hyams’ performance on JAir. We will leave it to our readers to comment further.

 

September 23, 2016

Newsflash: Lobo ‘defamed’ by Hyams & et.al

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, Election 2016, GE Governance, GE Service Performance
[35] Comments 

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

 

September 22, 2016

Andonopoulos Flyer

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, Election 2016, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[9] Comments 

ra

 

September 20, 2016

What A Sad, Sad, Night!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, Election 2016, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance
[11] Comments 

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.

 

September 19, 2016

Hitting Rock Bottom!

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

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!

 

September 15, 2016

Residents, Candidate Promises, & How To Decide

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, Election 2016, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[19] Comments 

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

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »