We have long maintained that the modus operandi of Glen Eira Council is secrecy and more secrecy. In particular, there appears to be a distinct lack of ‘openness and transparency’ between administration and councillors. At last council meeting, our suspicions were verified.
In response to Cr. Penhalluriack’s question to Newton regarding the potential risk associated with the Glen Huntly mulch facility, Newton responded:
“The report that Cr Penhalluriack is referring to went to the Audit Committee at the Audit Committee’s request on the 24 February which is three weeks ago. All recommendations are being implemented. Had I been given notice of these questions I would have answered them tonight but I was not given any notice. I’ll have to take them on notice for later reply.”
Now why on earth should the audit committee have to ‘request’ anything? If the organisation is at risk, then it is absolutely incumbent on Newton to table that information asap. This was obviously not done, and it appears that ‘action’ was initiated only as a consequence of Penhalluriack’s urging.
This is not the first time that we have had to query exactly what information is disseminated to committees and councillors by the administration. There was the recent instance where Glen Eira faced over 40 criminal charges over the Clayton tip and a potential fine of millions. Nothing was published, and we suspect, that perhaps none, or very few councillors knew this was happening. Then there is also the MRC and Newton ‘negotiations’ where another ‘request for a report’ had to be turned into a formal Council resolution before any information was forthcoming.
To make matters worse, the audit committee’s charter omits practically all reference to administration. Port Phillip on the other hand, makes it abundantly clear what it considers to be the role of administrators and their duty to keep committee members informed and cognisant of any potential risks. We quote:
“The Committee is to be kept informed by Council management regarding financial reporting, risk management and risk exposures of the organisation”.
Nothing like this appears in the Glen Eira charter, leaving councillors, committees and others, literally with their pants down!
Newton must be accountable to council and he must explain:
1. Why the report was not provided to the audit committee without being ‘requested’
2. How long did it take for councillors to be made aware of the potential risk?
3. Which delegated authority allows Officers to deal with such risk matters without reference to the Audit Committee and/or Council?
4. Who are the Policy Officers who administer risk matters of such nature?
6. When will the charter be tightened up so that administrators are mandated to fulfil their obligations and cannot escape scrutiny because of poorly worded policies and documents?
Glen Eira Debates 
March 19, 2011 at 3:30 PM
Management are clearly not doing their job if they cannot manage high risks that have the potential to kill people and it takes a part time Audit Committee that meets 4 times a year for an hour each time to identify the issue and get a review undertaken. Clearly Newton is out of control and his tenure not only should not be renewed but should be cut short, as well as the incompetent staff who were blissfully unaware of a potential life threatening situation.
March 19, 2011 at 5:01 PM
Control is all about gatekeeping and information. Once you hold the reins to information then everything is under your thumb. Councillors remain non the wiser (except for the favoured few) and vote on the slanted information that is put in front of them. That’s all they can do. But this lot of wimps are too terrified to ask the right questions, send incompetent reports back for redoing, and ensure that policy guarantees transparency. Either they are totally befuddled by the system that Newton has set up or they’re simply too stupid, or don’t care enough to examine how the wool is continually being pulled over their eyes. The sooner that Newton, Burke, Ahkehurst, Swabey, and the rest of the fat cats go, then the better off residents will be. Everything starts at the top and that is where the ombudsman has got to focus.
March 19, 2011 at 5:37 PM
how can you expect andrew to admit anything wrong or bad or bad looking? after all, when he got the job as a ceo in year 2000, he promised council and most of all to himself that he, andrew newton, will make this council look good. and that he achieved in spades. just have a look at the wall showing awards council won. it’s just those few prickly selfish resident activists that disturb ‘the peace and order’. even those he can handle deftly. just look at margaret esakoff, the selfish activist from ‘jasper action group’. she got what she wanted and now defends him to high ‘heaven’. and there is michael lipshutz, who recognised a ‘kindred’ professional powerbroker and bureaucrat he could work with behind closed doors. so he supports him too. code of conduct, ethics, it’s all bullshit.
oh, and nearly forgot about the secrecy bit. it’s really nothing personal. but ‘things you do not know, do not hurt’. so if the public does not know about some complaints or some thing so what? the image remains intact. you are wasting your time and effort to complain directly to council. use this blog (eg ‘bouquets & brickbats’ or other media outlet to make your point.
March 20, 2011 at 5:34 PM
Weren’t Esakoff (and Hyams) investigated last year for having a conflict of interest in relation to the decision whether to reappoint Newton because they were on the sacked Council? I just checked the Inspector’s report again on this website and it said the two councillors “said they wished to advertise the position”. If Forthright calls that defending someone to high heaven, I’d hate to see how he treats someone he doesn’t like. Interesting that it also says the complaint was made by “some councillors”.
March 19, 2011 at 7:54 PM
This can’t be an “accident”, nor even an oversight. There is absolutely no excuse for any scientific report to be sitting even 8 hours on Newton’s desk without him taking decisive action and at least informing the audit committee. If I was responsible for the lives of hundreds and hundreds of staff and local residents I sure wouldn’t wait until someone “requested” information from me. This looks like total negligence or an attempt by a desperate man to hush up the truth and to maintain a veneer of “all’s well”. It’s pretty clear that all is far from well within this council and in particular the way that it is run.
March 19, 2011 at 10:32 PM
So on the basis of Penhalluaracks question you have assumed the CEO has done something wrong. I thought we lived in a democratic society where people are allowed Natural Justice. In other words we have Frank’s questions. Surely we should now await the CEO”s answers. Then you should form an opinion. Frank could easily have provided a copy of his question to the CEO prior to the meeting allowing the CEO time to fully answer the question at the meeting.The fact that he chose not to and decided to ambush shows exactly what type of person he is. Frank has made allegations that the CEO has failed in his duties to protect the health of staff and constituents.These are very serious charges and it would not surprise me to see a public apology from the good Councillor.The whole world knows Frank is being investigated by authorities and if I am wrong he will be now.
March 19, 2011 at 10:45 PM
Below is the full text of Penhalluriack’s question as published in the minutes. You will note Anon that what the question cites is an actual consultant’s report, as well as some of the recommendations. The question you prefer to ignore is the one raised in the post – WHY DOES AN AUDIT COMMITTEE HAVE TO ‘REQUEST’ INFORMATION THAT SHOULD BE IMMEDIATELY PROVIDED BY THE CEO?
11.3 Councillor questions
Cr Penhalluriack asked the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) the following
question adding that he expected the CEO to take his question on notice.
“In a recent interview you articulated your views on Risk Management –
namely that they must be embedded into the work practices of all staff and is
driven by you from the top. Further, that you insist on direct reporting to you.
Given these statements, I assume you would therefore be in the best position
to answer my questions.
The questions all relate to a risk assessment by expert consultants retained
by Council to give an Expert Opinion on Council’s mulch bin in the Glen
Huntly Park. The author concludes that it is likely that workers and the mulch
users are potentially exposed to bacteria, for example Legionella and fungi
as a result of handling the mulch material. That’s in the Executive Summary
under the sub heading findings.
The Opinion carries certain recommendations, namely: under general
recommendations: Prevent large accumulation or build-up of mulch material
at the site, that is contain as is reasonably practicable the mulch stockpile
within the confines of the current storage area. If necessary stockpile the
material at a Council depot and truck it to the Neerim Road facility as
required. The following recommendations are made to manage the risk for
Council employees:
1. Provide training, instructions, information and appropriate PPE to
Council employees likely to come in to contact with this material.
2. The PPE that is recommended for Council employees handling mulch
materials is a disposable dust mask (P2); gloves; and washing hands after
use.
The following recommendations are made to manage the risk for the public
users of the facility:
1. Install a localized fine mist spray that can be activated with a push
button to dampen dust for members of the public to use when collecting
mulch.
2. Provide warning signage as per the example in Appendix E. Provide
flyers in a waterproof container with the warning notice that mulch users can
take away for reference purposes and
3. PPE is also recommended for members of the public, but this is a
recommendation that should be communicated through signage at the site, as
per the warnings that appear on commercially available products. My
questions are:
1. On what investigatory grounds did Council twice deny that there was
any danger to the community’s health form the mulch storage bin in the Glen
Huntly Park when it was raised by Councillor Penhalluriack?
2. Why did it take a third warning from Cr Penhalluriack, this time to the
Audit Committee, before Council sought an Expert Opinion on the matter?
3. When was that Opinion received, and why hasn’t it been circulated to
Councillors?
4. When was the first draft of this Opinion received?
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING – MINUTES 15 MARCH 2011
296
11.3 Councillor questions (cont’d)
5. Did the Opinion analyse the risks to persons in areas adjacent to the
mulch bin, such as in the Glen Eira Secondary College, the Council car-park
and the adjacent picnic and playground? and
6. Finally, a casual observer would feel that none of these
recommendations has been implemented. Please explain which have been
carried out, and why certain others have been ignored?”
March 19, 2011 at 11:13 PM
Au contraire anonymous .. “Frank could esaily have provided a copy of his question to the CEO prior to the meetiing” provided that this was not an administration that thrives on secrecy while using the buzz words of open and transparent. Seriously ask yourself would this issue have come to public attention if Frank had had any other option than to raise the question as open and transparently as he has done.
March 19, 2011 at 10:37 PM
This is now a council without a functioning Finance Committee, leaving an Audit Committee that has had the same members years and years. Not only is this not best practice but it leaves the organisation open to all kinds of influences and perceptions. With no oversighting body such as the Finance Committee Glen Eira places itself in a perilous position. Residents need to understand why this has happened. Who is responsible for axing the Finance Committee and how in heaven’s name could anyone allow Lipshutz to serve for some time on both the Audit and the Finance Committee simultaneously. The whole point is that they are meant to be independent and hence virtual controls. Personally I lay the blame at the feet of the gang of five. Their little cosy club which appears to influence so much that goes on must be put an end to. It reeks of conflicts of interest as well as extremely poor governance.
March 20, 2011 at 9:41 AM
If the Council as a whole feels that Finance should be dealt with by all 9 Councillors then you do not require a Finance Committee. Glen Eira has the reputation of being the best Financial example of a well run Council in Victoria. Ben work this out. All public questions are given to key staff and Councillors prior to the Council meeting.The question (if legal)is read out at the meeting and almost always answered then and there due to prior knowledge. Frank ambushed the CEO for no reason other to embarras him. Frank is a coward, a scheming one at that. If you want evidence of this ask why he took the matter to a Committee of Council, (audit) a Committee that is answerable directly to Council and it’s membership controlled by Council.He did this for 1 of 2 reasons. He may have taken the matter to his collegues and he was told to get lost and /or he just wanted to embarrass the CEO, Staff and his Collegues.Remember one thing. Frank gave us Peter Goudge via his nomineeship. Two of the kind.
March 20, 2011 at 10:30 AM
Anon, your understanding of things is abysmal. Audit committees are responsible for managing risk. Penhalluriack went to the only people with the authority to investigate the issue. Oh yeah and the wonderful answers to public questions are there on record for everyone to see. 90% never answer the question unless they are to the benefit of Newton and the other 10% either get lost, are full of bullshit, or are full of half truths. Burke is the author and councillors don’t have any part in answering them. The mayor 99% of the time signs what’s put under his/her nose. The whole place is manipulated and acts like the brotherhood – secrecy and favours to the select few.
March 20, 2011 at 1:46 PM
“The only people with authority to investigate” Firstly one of the aims of the Audit Committee, amongst others, is to manage risk. Audit Committees can recommend but they are answerable to Council.They cannot do anything unless delegated to do so by Council. The only way you can initiate any investigation within Council is by the Council,by the CEO or a deligate of both.The Audit Committee has no delegation to investigate. they can suggest.
March 20, 2011 at 5:15 PM
Anon, get off your soap box and get the facts right. The job of an audit committee is to identify and then investigate potential risks. They then recommend actions but they’re the first stop in any issue. They already are “delegated” by council to do the above. So why don’t you just go away and read the actual charter and the local government act and make sure that your brain is in operation before you even bother to put pen to paper. John was right – people are getting mighty sick and tired of your unflagging support for Newton when it’s as plain as the nose on your face that there’s real shonky stuff going on
March 20, 2011 at 7:10 PM
Anon you don’t have to get nasty.There is no issue with your interpretation of Audit Committee involvement into risk management, nor has there ever been. My issue is that Frank cowardly failed to give Newton his public question in advance.(which is normal practice) He also approached the Audit Committee which has no right to investigate, and it is obvious that he either deliberately avoided Council and or was told to get lost by his collegues. What about discussing these issues rather than ranting and getting personal.
March 20, 2011 at 8:31 PM
anon! my reading of the motion and all comments on the blog suggests that frank has done precisely what you wanted him to do in the first instance. as you said he got nowhere with his warnings for at least 2 times. using the sporting ‘parlance’ 3 gongs and you are out. so, frank has outed the ‘rot’ that is ‘mulching ‘ away the health of workers, students and users of glen huntly park ‘mulch’ shed.
if you were on the council and were convinced from your lifelong building experience, supported by a consultants report, would you not raise the issue to ensure it is fixed as quickly as possible? then there is the issue of each individual counillor fiduciary duty. this is a duty, not just simply having an opinion. would you not support a colleague councillor to make sure that the health risk and the associated financial risk as a result of negligence may impact on the council bottom line? you would make a very poor councillor if you were not concerned about the health and well-being of residents, users of the ‘mulch’ shed, innocent by-standers, and ratepayers.
finally, i just wonder, if this clear example is dealt with in such a bad way, how many other such examples exist over the period of andrew newton being a top officer and then ceo? after all andrew newton was in the thick of it when the first risk ‘balls up’ was sorted out in 1998 with resignation of vincent mckay, the deputy ceo, as part of ‘a continuing streamlining process of the senior executive structure’, when cr barry neve was the mayor. how many such ‘resignations’ happened over that period, that is the question?
March 20, 2011 at 10:07 PM
You raise some good points forthright that deserve discussion and investigation. Someone once told me that after Newton came in there was a mass exodus from Glen Eira. Now whether this is because staff realised who they were working for and didn’t want a bar of it, or whether Newton simply got rid of them because they were either incompetent, or they wouldn’t do things his way. My friend told me that there was over 20% staff turnover. Personally I can’t believe that this many people leaving is all due to incompetence.
I also keep wondering why someone who prides themselves on having worked at commonwealth and then state level should even bother to cling so desperately to a position in Glen Eira. Was he chucked out of these other jobs or life made so difficult that he had to leave? Does anyone know anything about this man’s background? I’m just intrigued as to why someone would apparently slide down the ladder of jobs rather than work his way up. Let’s face it, Glen Eira certainly doesn’t compare to Canberra and the prestige from that if you’re in the upper echelons.
March 20, 2011 at 9:35 PM
For the life of me I cannot understand why it was built there in the first place. Call it a mulch recycling depot or transfer station, I was under the impression you need licences from the EPA to build such facilities. But on top of that, to build it next to a BBQ area (well it was actually built on top of part of that area) and next to a play ground and next to a sporting oval and next to a school. Dumb decision by a dumb administration.
March 20, 2011 at 10:38 PM
Colin said “someone once told me” etc etc. So on the basis of hearsay you draw conclusions about the competancy of a brilliant,dedicated Officer. Colin you also regard being the CEO of Glen Eira as an embarrasment.I should be so embarrased.
March 20, 2011 at 11:13 PM
I will not engage in any further discussion with you Anon on this matter. You are entitled to your opinion and so am I. What is Brilliant to you is laughable given that under this man’s reign we have division and mistrust, not to mention three municipal inspections in the space of just over a decade. No other council that I know of has been through such upheaval. Ask yourself why so many good staff have left or been forced out? Newton is at the heart of all this upheaval. His continued presence augurs more of the same unless councillors have the gumption to do what they’re meant to – control the bureaucrats and serve the people.
March 21, 2011 at 2:49 AM
Well I for one was pleased to hear of some positive action regarding the simmering Poison Pot in the poor old Glenhuntly Park. It would seem that three mayors now have replied in letters that there are to be “no worries regarding the poisonous gases” which are safely stored in the poison enclosure. It would seem a good idea for any councillor if he/she were morally worried and concerned about the health risks of exposure of Glen Eira citizens, hundreds of students from the college and even the multi-million dollars worth of horses in the close area on a day of wind-drift to attempt to secure a safe solution then Frank Penhuillarick is to commended and congratulated on this action.
March 22, 2011 at 9:11 PM
i can’t help ‘mulching’ away at this issue. look at it this way. cr margaret esakoff, mayor 3 times, entered glen eira council on a nimby (not in my back yard) issue of a skateboard in princess park across her house. she and her husband established selfishly the ‘jasper action group’, which existed only for the purpose of electing margaret. she got support from her family, friends and liberal party members and supporters. she had her two young daughters stand in the other wards to make sure that the name esakoff is known in the whole city. she got elected and ensured that the skateboard plans for princess park are changed.
but it seems that the selfish margaret cares only for her own ‘backyard’, because any other resident’s complaint or issue goes into the bureaucratic ‘black hole’. and margaret can’t do much about that. so my suggestion is take the ‘mulch’ to margaret’s house and then you’ll have a chance to have this issue dealt with margaret esakoff ‘nimby’ extraordinaire.