We have finally received a copy of the Municipal Inspector’s Report and have uploaded it into our permanent archive, under the heading INSPECTOR’S REPORT.
A short foreward first! We believe that the report was released to the media last Wednesday, without the knowledge of all councillors. In other words, there was a leak! Further, we have also learnt that once an individual went to council chambers requesting a copy of the findings, the service desk were under instructions to call down someone like Paul Burke, or other directors.
The media having in its possession the report, sought feedback from community members. The report has thus been widely distributed and we now place it for all to see on our website. Please read it carefully, and offer your comments. The findings, the processes adopted by certain individuals within council, are of major concern.
POSTSCRIPT: We’ve taken up a suggestion made by one of our readers and uploaded both the 1998 Walsh Report and the 2005 Whelan Report. Wonderful symmetry here – Walsh, Whelan, Wolf and Walker! These earlier reports are now also archived under Whelan and Walsh Reports on the left hand side of the homepage.
Glen Eira Debates 
September 5, 2010 at 9:41 PM
Well that is quite extraordinary.
My first impression is that this confirms many of the recent concerns about the lack of transparency of council procedures. The reference to councillor-only meetings is particularly worrying.
The second thing that stands out is the nature of the complaints which it seems must have come from persons with close knowledge of council workings – most likely a councillor or staff member.
Hopefully there will be a few pertinent public questions asked at the next council meeting.
September 5, 2010 at 9:59 PM
Who needs the KGB when you’ve got Paul Burke and the other heavies?
September 5, 2010 at 10:42 PM
I’m dismayed to read that these sorts of tactics are used in my name – a ratepayer. If this isn’t an attempt to intimidate or at least keep check on whoever, then what is it? There’s also the issue of who decided upon such tactics and if this was done with councillor approval. Over the years I’ve heard numerous stories. Now I believe them all.
There’s so much more I want to say about the actual report but it’s late so will save that for another day
September 5, 2010 at 11:58 PM
I joined the Glen Eira Council in October 2009 as a result of the departure of respected Cr. Nick Staikos. The first week after joining was the important matter of our CEO’s contract. I got in at the critical stage.
The Councillor only meeting was to discuss the CEO contract process and discussions on his KPI’s. The Councillors who were in the Council for a long time suggested formation of a sub-committee of four Councillors who had past experience in the Council. At that time, I did not know the procedures and relied on others as most of us did. Looking on the hindsight this should not have had happened.
I also believe (and I informed the Inspectors) that we should have got the CEO, Mr. Andrew Newton involved right from the beginning. I for one will never be a party to such committee’s without the presence of an Officer; a recommendation made in the inspection report.
The comments made about KGB and Paul Burke in the case of
report available for public are not warranted; before writing even as “Anonymous” one should pick the phone and
or/write to the Ward Councillor whom you have voted for
to be your voice.
Oscar C. Lobo
Ran on – New Voice for Bentleigh.
Oscar C. Lobo
Tucker Ward.
September 6, 2010 at 9:44 AM
Gutless Inspectors.Covering microphones, secret meetings and a whole raft of ways of avoiding scrutiny is what this Council stands for. Gutless Inspectors.
September 6, 2010 at 12:17 PM
The following comment by Reprobate was made to our archive. We believe it also deserves to be put up here.
Reprobate On September 6, 2010 at 11:47 AM
Permalink | Reply | Edit
At the risk of sounding pro-Council, the Local Government
Investigations and Compliance Inspectorate’s report is probably the right outcome (not within the Inspectorate’s jurisdiction which is the Local Government Act 1989, or not sufficient evidence, or not breaches of LGA as alleged).
The trouble is that it is so hard to legislate for ethical
behaviour. The Inspector in his report regularly reminded
Council of the objectives of accountability and transparency
under Section 3C of LGA, as he clearly felt that Council was
substantially departing from them. That is timely, and probably needs to be done more frequently. There remains a gap between unethical or careless behaviour, and outright illegal behaviour.
In an ironic twist, by labelling the report “Private and
Confidential”, its clear that the report was not intended to be made public. I accept that there is a need for a degree of confidentiality about allegations made and the identities of complainants. However it is in the public interest, as being vital to the proper functioning of a democracy, that Council behaviour which we consider unethical and do not approve of,*is* made public. It may well be influential when people cast their votes on the rare occasions we can influence Council behavour.
Most of the allegations made concern Councillors. It appears
that few, if any, allegations came from the general public,
coming instead from fellow Councillors and Council officers.
Yet so much Council business is actually done by Council
officers acting with delegated authority. There is a desperate need for those acting with delegated authority to improve the accountability and transparency of *their* decisions. And Councillors, when delegating powers, have an obligation to ensure a process is in place that allows them to check that the decisions being made on their behalf are indeed the ones they would make.
There is a subtle comment in the report, whose implications may not be immediately obvious to the casual reader. Emails sent to Councillors using their Council email addresses are read by Council officers. Be aware of that if complaining about officer behaviour.
September 6, 2010 at 4:17 PM
Reprobate’s analysis deserves some comment. He is undoubtedly correct when he states that legislating for ethical behaviour is extremely difficult, if not impossible. I’d take it even further. Most of the legislation (in particular the Local Government Act) works on the assumption that it is councillors who hold power, who are the decision makers and that administrations are there to implement council decisions and resolutions. This is all fine in theory. In reality, the practise is vastly different I suspect. I’ll illustrate my point.
The report states that councillors were using their private emails to conduct council business. There was also the issue of councillor only meetings with no ‘independent’ note-taker, and the switching off of recording devices. On the surface, these examples raise ethical if not legal quandaries. The questions that immediately spring to my mind are – (1) why shouldn’t councillors communicate privately? (2) in whose interests is it to control email communication if, as Reprobate states, all Glen Eira emails are available to administrators? (3) if I were deciding the fate of a CEO, would I want one of his underlings sitting in on my deliberations, or would I want my opinions audiotaped and then played back to the very person I was discussing? (4) Is there really such a thing as an ‘independent’ notetaker if that person is a staff member? None of these contingencies are covered by the legislation. But this doesn’t make them any less real, or any more pertinent.
Then there’s always the question of what councillors are told – especially greenhorns who are unfamiliar with the legislation, and often procedures instituted by the administration. Oscar Lobo’s post confirms the steep learning curve that is necessary. And this assumes that the information that is provided to councillors is pure as the driven snow!
The inspector’s report also commented quite often about councillor Code of Conduct. Nothing was stated about the Officer’s Code of Conduct. This is determined by the CEO. He is the sole judge of ‘moral/ethical behaviour’ on the part of his staff. No-one, possibly including councillors, has seen this officer code of conduct. The point I’m making is that the entire thrust of the legislation is directed towards averting councillor, rather than staff wrong doing. As a result, the inspector’s hands were undoubtedly tied.
The other possibility of course is the role of the Minister and the political maelstrom that might eventuate. My reading of the situation is why would he bother. Glen Eira under this administration seems to be playing right into the state government’s hands with East Caulfield, the racetrack, and numerous other planning issues. They are all being ‘good little boys’ and furthering the Labour agenda. How ironic for a Liberal dominated council.
For the rest of us, this is untenable. The report shows once again a council divided, mistrusting of each other, and of the CEO. It really feels like déjà vu, with the only difference that in 2005 councillors were sacked, and the administration left untouched. This time it is obvious to all who bother to read the report carefully that the involvement of the administration has been massive and the trigger for the investigation itself. Councillors come out sullied and childish, incapable of even getting their stories straight – ie. Two times there are nine different versions or interpretations of the same incident. But the administration lurks ominously in the background, fomenting dissent and division. Only with a divided council does their power remain intact.
September 7, 2010 at 3:00 PM
I have to agree with Mr. Evans. The power brokers are definitely the administration. Makes me want to laugh when I read that officers have “strict policies and guidelines in place concerning the provision of accurate and timely advice to council.” It’s almost exactly a year since there was a request for a report on what’s to happen with the Packer Park bowling green. We haven’t heard a word about this. Guess a year is what this council and the inspectorate would see as ‘timely’ advice!
The bigger issue though is why aren’t councillors demanding that all reports are tabled asap?
September 7, 2010 at 3:55 PM
How’s this for ‘provision of accurate..advice’ from the Save Local Childcare website -Council Officers are again using irrelevant federal data to justify the closure of ECC in their latest attempt at a Municipal Early Years Plan. It’s nothing short of misleading when Council records obtained under FOI show there are already 400 children on the waiting list for council care. That’s BEFORE the Elsternwick… centre closes!
‘Misleading’, ‘blatant lies’ from an earlier Letter to the Editor posted on this site. We need to take everything with a large grain of salt when reports are eventually tabled.
September 6, 2010 at 2:35 PM
Congratulations to Glen Eira Debates for publishing this Confidential & Private Municipal Inspector’s Report by David Wolf. To make sense out of ehat this Report is saying we also need to have a look at the Whelan Report of 2005 and Dr Greg Walsh Report of 1998. ‘gleneira’ could you plse find and upload those reports so that we can compare what has happened over time. After all if we are to know where we are going we must know where we are coming from.
Just for interest I have looked up Glen Eira website now and could not find any reference to David Wolf Report only Whelan Report of 2005. Dr Greg Walsh Report is also not there. Are they hiding something? You never know the Whelan Report may also disappear soon. I would be curious to see all reports together for consideration by the public. Thanks.
September 6, 2010 at 8:07 PM
This comment is from the Walsh report
“The three most important issues involve
(i)a lack of shared understanding between councillors and officers about the roles and responsibilities of Councillors and the Chief Executive Officer.
(ii) communication between officers and councillors
(iii) representation and public participation
Seems that nothing has changed in 12 years.
September 6, 2010 at 9:15 PM
And one needs to look at what has been the constant throughout these 12 years – none other than the presence of the current CEO!
September 6, 2010 at 10:52 PM
As far as I know, and would someone please correct me if I’m wrong, no other council in the state has had 3 investigations in the space of a decade or so. They all seem to focus on failures of governance and the clash between councillor groups and officers. Nothing changes though. We now have the third report which basically has achieved nothing. All we can look forward to is a fourth report in the next couple of years. Leopards simply do not change their spots. The only way to avert this is a clean sweep of everyone. Those officers who have been there for a decade or so must go, as must all councillors with the possible exception of the new guys (Lobo and Forge).
September 8, 2010 at 7:29 PM
Hi Anon, while I agree with your arguments, I totally disagree with your solution. It is not the Council that needs to be replaced but the CEO and his ’kitchen cabinet’. I strongly defend the present set of Councillors. The argument below gives the reason why.
It seems to me that all of you are of a certain persuasion that attacks Councillors’ and in particular Cr Lipshutz. You are either totally naive or you do not understand politics and the way it is played. I think Cr Lipshutz presence in Glen Eira is the best thing that happened to Glen Eira’s democracy. It is getting back on track the way it should be. It is largely through his effort that the ‘divide, conquer and rule’ machinations of the CEO and his ‘kitchen cabinet’ are being curtailed. I believe that once the Inspector’s investigation is out of the way and dealt with properly we shall see a further move towards democratisation of Glen Eira and involvement of the community in Council’s affairs.
Why do I say that? We need to understand the powerful position of a CEO and Andrew Newton background to appreciate how good Cr Lipshutz is. Andrew Newton is a bureaucrat par excellence. ‘Before commencing as Glen Eira City Council CEO in 2000, Mr Newton worked as an executive for the Australian and Victorian governments under both Coalition and Labor parties. The first minister he served under was Malcolm Fraser, and the most recent was Rob Knowles (health minister in Kennet Gov’t) in the mid-90s. Mr Newton holds a Bachelor of Arts with Honours from Monash University and an MBA from Melbourne University where he came first in his year. He is also a Fellow of the Australian Institute of Company Directors (AICD).’
Before Cr Lipshutz came to the Council there were two municipal Inspector’s investigating Glen Eira. First was carried out in 1998 by Dr Greg Walsh assisted by Mr Merv Whelan. That resulted in Recommendations largely to do with governance issues. At that stage Mr Andrew Newton was Director Corporate Development. He came to Glen Eira invited by Ms Margaret Douglas as Chief Financial Officer in 1996. In 2005 there was another investigation by Mr Merv Whelan. That resulted in sacking of the quarelling Council and again the Recommendation was to improve Governance at the Council. So the first job of the newly elected Council in 2005 was to tackle the disunity and the Governance issue.
That is exactly what Cr Lipshutz has done as soon as the results of the 2005 election became known. He invited five Councillors to his home: Whiteside, Tang, Esakoff, Feldman, and Ashmor. At that meeting they have discussed how to deal with those two issues of unity and governance. As a result no Mayor was elected that did not belong to that group of Councillors to ensure unity. Secondly, they worked on procedures to ensure that quarrels are kept in check with meeting procedure that minimized quarrelsome elements e.g. No Surprise Policy. Thirdly, the Council has determined policies and not the administration. Have a look at the policy framework generated by Mr Newton as described in 2005/2006 Annual Report. Compare that to the policy framework of the Annual Report 2008/2009. Big difference! All that was achieved with the guidance, help and great input by Cr Lipshutz.
Anyone, I am Curious. In fact I am very, very Curious. What would you do better if you were elected in 2005 to the Council. I challenge anyone to show mw that they could do better.
Over to you now.
September 8, 2010 at 11:21 PM
Reckon you’re so far off the mark Curious, that it’s not funny. Lipshutz as the saviour of good governance? You’ve got to be kidding. Policies such as ‘no surprises’ merely presents the facade of a united council, and was brought in to stop Staikos, Robilliard, and occasionally Spaulding from asking too many difficult questions. With this scenario, all Newton has to do is sit back and let Lipshutz and his ilk do all the damage and take the flak. And let me ask you – as a lawyer what has Lipshutz achieved with this third investigation. The findings of lack of transparency, poor accountability still linger. Lipshutz can go on and on about his quasi-judicial role, as Reprobate pointed out, but in the end this is also a nonsense. If he was worth his weight as a lawyer who is acting in a quasi-jucidial role as a councillor, then why didn’t he put a stop to some of the things that the inspector pointed out? Methinks that the phone calls from a councillor to the legal firm without permission might quite feasibly be laid at his doorstep. arrogance? stupidity? Take your pick. The bottom line is that Newton comes out scot free and it is councillors who are all left with severe egg on their faces.
September 9, 2010 at 3:25 PM
Hi Anon, I wish you would distinguish yourself and not pretend. From now on I’ll call you The Pretender.
So, to The Pretender – you did not get my point and just carry on like a two bob watch. I repeat, what would you do were you to get a seat on the Council like Cr Forge and Cr Oscar did? Could you do any better than Cr Lipshutz? I doubt it. You would be like a forlorn chick in the wild, lost.
September 11, 2010 at 1:17 AM
Hi Curious, Im very curious as to how you would know all these personal BBQ dates for a close set of 5 (Im just doing the maths, there are 9 Councillors right?) Well I am certainly not in the “inner circle of trust” how do you get in it?
September 11, 2010 at 2:45 PM
Hi Nick, It’s very simple. I am NOT in the “inner circle of trust” as you put it. But I treat all councillors as a friend. So they reciprocate and let me know things they would not otherwise disclose.
I also stick to the business dictum with customers: “if you do not like what we do tell us; if you like what we do tell others”. So if I do not like something about the Council I tell my ward Coucnillors about it. I hope then that they will do the right thing and correct it. So far they were helpful.
September 7, 2010 at 9:39 AM
My printers on the blink and I wanted a hard copy of the inspectors report so went down to council yesterday and asked for it. The bloke sitting at the desk looked unsure, went into the back room and then came out with a copy. Maybe they’ve been embarrassed enough to call off the dogs. Would be even better if the report was sitting on the counter in full view. But if they bury the announcement guess its too much to ask for full ‘transparency’ even though this is what they’re accused of.
September 7, 2010 at 10:17 AM
From the front page of today’s Caulfield Leader:
Get back to basics
Councillors told they must shape up
GLEN Eira councillors are to undergo extensive training after a State Government investigation uncovered councillor behaviour ‘‘at odds with the objectives of council’’.
A scathing 10-page report by the Local Government Investigations and Compliance Inspectorate, released last Wednesday, also revealed ‘‘ shortcomings in the transparency and accountability of councillor behaviour’’. While there was insufficient evidence to prosecute any councillor f or breaches of the Local Government Act, the investigation identified ‘‘a general shift away from the objectives of a council’’, chief municipal inspector David Wolf said.
Glen Eira mayor Steven Tang welcomed the report’s findings and acknowledged there was room for improvement.
‘‘The council will respond to all the recommendations, including accountability and transparency,’’ Cr Tang said.
The investigation follows 43 individual complaints to the inspectorate since November 2009.
Only 27 complaints were scrutinised as those remaining fell outside the inspectorate’s jurisdiction or were not supported with sufficient evidence. Those followed up related to alleged conflicts of interest surrounding the reappointment of chief executive Andrew Newton, which saw former deputy mayor Helen Whiteside quit in July.
They also involved councillors changing the minutes of meetings, the alleged misuse of position, use of personal email address for council business and covering or removing microphones at meetings so comments were not recorded or heard by the gallery.
Glen Eira Resident’s Association president Don Dunstan said the report was ‘‘ a complete whitewash’’.
‘‘The report does not get to the root cause of the problem.’’
September 7, 2010 at 10:48 AM
[“Walsh, Whelan, Wolf and Walker”]
Any chance of completing the set with the Whiteside Report?
September 9, 2010 at 2:44 AM
ha,hah, hah, hee, hee, hee, your poor, poor silly people. the whole thing is a farce, a shakespearean comedy, tragedy, melodrama all put together. perhaps the closest thing to glen eira is hamlet, the mad, mad prince of denmark. it’s full of ‘treachery, revenge, incest,and moral corruption’.
let’s set the characters: andrew as hamlet; paul as claudius present king of denmark; margaret douglas as former dead king of denmark, the ghost and father of prince hamlet; peter swabey as polonious trusted chief counsellor of claudius; david gibbs as ophelia courted by hamlet; jeff akehurst as queen gertrude; lipshutz and tang as rosenkrantz and guildernstern courtiers friends to hamlet; as to the minor players you can choose them yourself.
now to the plot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamlet). margaret douglas removal from glan eira in 1998 involved betrayal and treachery and she became a ghost for andrew. sacking of the council in 2005 was assasination/murder pure and simple (the murder scene in the play). rosenkrantz and guildernstern are perceived by hamlet to be spying on him (isn’t that how andrew feels about lipshutz and tang?). investigation in 2010 results in reprimand of councillors (claudius proposes a fencing match full of intrigue, spin, weasel words, lies and poison). i do not know if the end of paul and andrew reign will be similar to hamlet, but it looks very tempting to see it full of dead bodies all over the place.
as to the watching public, as i said initially – hah, hah, ha, hee, hee, hee, bravo, bravo, bravo as the curtain comes down in two years time or earlier.
September 10, 2010 at 11:48 PM
The following comment was posted to our archive by Nick Varvodic. We also felt it belonged here:
I think you will find that this investigation is far from over, my complaint in relation to unauthorised users of sports ovals is just warming up after it appears the Councillors have carefully chosen the specific information they gave out to the Inspectorate. It would have been nice if they gave all the full details out instead of trying to claim to the Inspectorate we were given an allocation every year during summer, and as the Councillors also conveniently forgot to mention the main reason of the complaint which is “Why cant we use Caulfield Park when your mates and relatives can?”
September 11, 2010 at 3:32 PM
[…] here, and a summary of the findings of the investigations here (PDF). Glen Eira Debates also has commentary and reader comments on this […]