Saturday, April 10, 2010


The meeting last Tuesday night was relatively short but did cover some important items which are highlighted below- full minutes are available at the GE link and then by clicking on council and community.

Animal Management Committee- an amendment to the minutes was moved and passed to engage a consultant to report back to council on the feasibliity , costs and parameters regarding undertaking a review of Glen Eira's present off-leash regulations and areas. The admendment in full read as follows:

"that the recommendations of the committtee be adopted except that, in relation to 6b of the minutes of the animal management advisory committee , Council resolves to invite experts in animal mangement, including Harlock Jackson Pty Ltd and Jeavons and Jeavons Pty Ltd, to provide a quote to prepare a report setting out recommendations as to the requirements for a comprehensive review of Council's off-leash areas, including the 50 metre rule having regard to to Councils Domestic Animal Management plan. The report should include methodology, a timeline , the issues to be considered and the potential cost of a such a review. The quotes should come to council in order for Council to determine who should provide the report."

The motion was put and carried unanimously.

comment- I fully supported this initiative as I understand there hasn't been a full review on this issue since 1996.

Glen Eira Toilet draft strategy
This comprehensive draft strategy was welcomed by council as a significant step forward.
It indentifies improvements and upgrades for this important public amenity.Included were findings from an extensive consultation process. The strategy will be placed on public exhibition with submissions welcomed.

Some of the key reccomendations were;
- that fully automated toilets continue to be installed in our park and reserve areas.
- a semi-automated 'hybrid' style facility be trialed and if successful used in our high use areas such as shopping strips.
- the adoption of a five year action plan that will see the upgrading/replacement of some of our older facilities and new facilities to ensure there is a max of 1ooo metres between public toilets in commercial areas ie 500m or less distance to travel.

CEO Reappointment
Council has reappointed our current CEO Mr Andrew Newton for a term of two years with an option excercisable only by council to extend the appointment for a further two years after that.


  1. What you neglect to mention Cr. Pilling is that Crs. Whiteside and Magee voted AGAINST incorporating outside 'experts' such as local vets, and community reps onto the Animal Management Committee. So much for listening to local voices!!! Magee and Whiteside must be called to account. Further, the cited motion whilst welcome is in reality meaningless. It does not propose any concrete action, simply a 'let's get some recommendations' and if true to course, then let's forget all about it!! Cr. Hyams is to be congratulated however, for at least attempting to wreak some common sense on a draconian council.

  2. Anonymous:
    Why don’t you take the time to get some background on the the stance I have taken on the community reps for the Animal Management Committee. A simple phone call is all it takes.
    I am happy to be called to account at any time, but not by someone who needs to be Anonymous
    I have said on a number of occasions if any one wants to talk to me about any discussion of council, just ring me. 0427 338 327 Office 9563 8360
    Cr Jim Magee

  3. What 'background' can justify the fact that you voted against community/expert reps? What 'background' can justify the fact that on your 2005 election promo you had printed the commitment to give dog owners a voice on council? What 'background' is necessary to see how out of step Glen Eira and yourselves are in relation to best practice? What background can explain the fact that all surrounding councils (Bayside, Port Phillip, etc.) believe it is in the community's interests to have A MAJORITY of community reps on numerous advisory committees? surrounding councils? What 'background' can excuse the fact that in over a year you have achieved practically zilch!

  4. I was at the Council Meeting and it was my impression that Cr Hyams wanted to bring any decision making that may have occurred in the Animal Management Committee back to the full Council. I thought that unusual at the time. I disagreed with Cr Whiteside's assertion that the desexing of cats in particular is to be avoided (she's an animal lover by definition and I'm not). I believe when owners prove themselves irresponsible about their animal's breeding habits, reasonable force must be used! It is kinder to prevent pregnancy than kill the kittens after birth...Bad for mum and worse for the kids!

    I wondered what Cr Hyams motives were, for wanting the decision making process referred back to Council pending recommendations. Didn't do that for the Community Grants Committee but relied on the recommendation of Esakoff and Whiteside. What is different?

  5. CEO Appointment:

    I find it disgraceful that a senior bureaucrat, gainfully employed for ten years service, could only achieve a two year contract. I am very pleased to note in the current Caulfield Leader that the Municipal Inspector is to investigate this apparent abuse of natural justice in an Administration Officer who has only ever been praised in the Council Chamber.

    And Mayor Tang's Media Release confirms what Cr Lipshutz has said all along, in his fifth years as a Councillor, that Mr Newton has done the Council proud with his administrative skills!!

  6. Why don't you just write it here for all to see Jim?

    Also, from my reading of the amendment all it is asking for is quotes.

    Finally what on EARTH are council doing recomending more of those bloody automatic toilets. The community HATE them. Many people won't use them. They are expensive, use heaps of water and STILL have to manually cleaned by a person each day.

  7. I remember Cr Magee saying in Council, that he welcomed the input from community based members on the Committee of Animal Management, as he was the first to admit he did not know everything....Remember we all nodded and laughed in agreement, that outside help was to be acknowledged......Has this point of view changed since, Cr Magee?.

    Kim, that only 50% of those surveyed about toilets were 'satisfied' tells its own story about those Exeloos. Of course they're better than nothing, but does Council have to compromise its standards for a lousy 50%...

  8. Today's letter in the Caulfield Glen Eira Leader by Lipshutz is an insult to the intelligence of the community. Lipshutz maintains that the current investigation derives from a councillor briefing and concerns minutes of that meeting. We are also told that councillors uphold majority council decisions. Since only officers and councillors attend councillor briefings, it is safe to assume that the subsequent 'complaint' came from a councillor since no member of the public is present. Furthermore, officers are responsible for the minutes, then the thought of one of them 'complaining' is a nonsense. Yet Lipshutz contends that all is well, that noone would go against a majority vote. But didn't council 'vote' not to proceed with an investigation? Didn't the dubious nature of the minutes become a motion and was voted on within this councillor briefing? And the final bit of nonsense concerns Lipshutz's claims that the Inspectorate is duty bound to 'investigate' all complaints. Heck, yes!! But an individual inspector is only called in when the complaint has got beyond first base - otherwise these blokes would be flat chat 24/7. So what's the real story? Which councillor complained? And what is the difference between 'form' and 'outcome'? There are a lot of questions that require answers. The problem is that when we get the dissembling and nonsense that Lipshutz trots out then his claims of 'transparency' within council decision making sound nothing more than a sick joke.

  9. Anom- I disagree with your appraisal of this issue- Cr Lipshutz is correct in stating in his leader letter the extent, as confirmed by the inpectorate, for the present investigation.

  10. Sadly Neil, much of what Anonymous wrote remains unanswered. Surely there is more to it than simply the difference between councillor briefing minutes and 'form' versus 'outcome'. Minutes are corrected all the time, so what's the big deal about this time? The Leader reported 'conflict of interest' and the reappointment of the CEO. Now that's much more meatier - if they're correct. The public has a right to know what is going on. We also have the right to know how come the Leader got wind of the story before it was made known to the ratepayers. Who leaked? And to what purpose? Who lodged the complaint? Was it a councillor breaking ranks on what we're consistently told is a wonderful bunch of like minded individuals. What exactly is being investigated, what are the Municipal Inspector's 'terms of reference' (if any). Will the report be made public? What will councillors do to ensure that it is - after all, it is our money that's paying for this shemozzle once again.