Frank Penhalluriack achieved a remarkable victory at council meeting this evening. The mulch heap at Glen Huntly Park will be closed down and removed because of the fear of potential health risks. Penhalluriack’s motion to close the facility was supported by Forge, Pilling, Lobo, Magee, Hyams, Esakoff and opposed by Tang and Lipshutz. The discussion went as follows:
Penhalluriack: Stated that there had been a lot of discussion amongst councillors but ‘on the evidence I have seen and researched this mulch….is a dangerous thing….can though fungi and bacteria…..cause legionella disease’. Penhalluriack said that he recognised that there had not been any deaths reported in the area that could be associated with mulch. ‘Research would indicate that deaths come more from woodchips’ when people get legionella. Stated that council organised ‘through the audit committee’ an extra opinion to look at the issue and their reports said ‘exposure to shredded mulch can carry a risk of exposure to various fungi, yeast and moulds and bacteria, including legionella’. ‘Is it worth anybody dying?’ ‘while the risk may be relatively small the risk is definitely there’. Elderly are especially susceptible ….’The third page….was unfortunately missed from the agenda and has been replaced tonight, but only in the black and white version’. The colour version shows ‘quite clearly what is not shown in the black and white verion’ – ie. the dust cloud that is created by the bulldozer pushing the mulch around. ‘It’s those very fine particles’ which carry the disease according to scientific tests to ‘at least 200 metres’. Within 20 metres of this mulch heap ‘we have a playground’, barbecue and school. ‘It’s not worth the risk. I know this is a great convenience to consumers…but the second photograph’ shows the mulch sitting way outside the container. ‘the recommendation from the expert is that it should not be outside’. There should be warning signs to the public to wear masks and gloves and wash your hands after handling. Said that the notice had been put out, and held up the sheet with the expert’s opinion, then said that he’s highlighted the legionella risk ‘but for some reason on the notice inside….those words have been missed. Those words are the most crucial’. It’s a risk that shouldn’t be taken by Council.
FORGE: outlined her experience as a physiotherapist where she had dealt with many people who had thoracic diseases such as emphysema, asthma, bronchitis ‘which may take up to thirty years to develop’. We shouldn’t subject any man, woman or child to further pollutants in the air given the evidence. ‘We have to take the much bigger picture and not just the possibility of legionaires’…’we have to take this seriously as well’.
LIPSHUTZ: ‘this is scaremongering….there are other ways …it’s true to say that the audit committee obtained a report…the issue here is how far do we go? ‘There are always risks in everything we do….we have a government report which says there is nothing wrong with this…and in fact that it is okay….Penhalluriack has got other data’. The consultant’s report ‘nowhere does it say we should close’ down. That’s not an issue – ‘i don’t want to have any danger to children or adults….we can take things to the nth degree…..’there is no clear indication of danger’…’ knee jerk reaction’….’let’s do testing, let’s see and if that at the end demonstrates that things are incorrect, close it’
TANG: stated that he’d had many conversations with Penhalluriack about this. ‘my issue with this suggests that it is a knee jerk reaction…it’s like a nanny state’. Used the analogy of car crashes that instead of implementing traffic lights, seat belt, we stop people driving. Penhalluriack ‘agitated’ for the report and after reading it, Tang agrees that ‘we certainly need to take steps to mitigate against these risks’…’I’m not debating the fact that there is a risk of legionella’. Read other sections of the report which said that the air testing results were not elevated when compared to surrounding areas….’you’re quite right to be concerned about risks and here we have some suggestions about how…so the conclusion I came to from reading the report …council should implement every one of the recommendations…council should close the facility until such time that every recommendation in the report is fully implemented and people should be fully aware of what the risks are…..and the signage should be larger’. Said that there was some concern about wind conditions when the tests were conducted, so suggests ‘that the site be tested at least once a month for six months immediately after you reopen’
PILLING: the mulch facility is a service to the community but the placement is wrong ‘wedged between a playground and a secondary school’ ‘I think it should be moved’. ‘The children’s playground was there first and we introduced this mulch heap, it was probably a poor decision then’. He hoped that a better site could be found in the future away from playgrounds and schools.
HYAMS: argued against Tang’s analogy with cars since everyone knows about the dangers and the need to wear seatbelts, but this isn’t the case with mulch and its dangers. Went on to state that he had no idea that diseases could be associated with mulch and that ‘a lot of people wouldn’t know that’. Warning signs aren’t enough – we have warning signs for everything and people still ignore them. ‘I don’t like the idea of a nanny state, but sometimes you need to protect people from themselves…in this case I think we’ve got to err on the side of caution’.
MAGEE: spoke about the timber industry and spoke about green and wet timber. ‘I cannot go to a green saw anywhere in Victoria without’ masks. Related that he is an asthmatic, and that the highest number of deaths of people working in the timber industry was in people working in green sawmills. ‘The only common denominator is dealing with wet timber’….the bacteria stays on the outside of the bark …’I think there is a very big link between wet timber and asthma’
ESAKOFF: ‘I too was sitting on the fence here’ but decided if ‘there is a minute risk’ and even though ‘I don’t like a nanny state’ but given it’s location near a playground caution is warranted.
PENHALLURIACK: stated that he thought that the installation that Council currently has is contrary to the Australian Standards. Further the mulch that council has is ‘not pasteurised’ and the Standards Australia says that commercial installations should produce only ‘pasteurised mulch’. Said that he wouldn’t like the state authorities to come and have a look at the mulch facilities and find that they are not up to the standards.
Motion was carried 7 to 2.
CONCLUSION:
- The central issue of WHY THE AUDIT COMMITTEE DID NOTHING has not been addressed
- Tang’s declaration that he agrees that ‘you’re quite right to be concerned about risk’ is another black mark against the Audit Committee for not passing this information (report) onto the rest of the councillors. He admits that he only got to read it after Penhalluriack’s urging.
- One of the rare times that administration has been publically criticised in their lousy decision to place this mulch heap near a playground
- Newton has not answered the questions as to why the report lay on his desk for at least 12 days before being tabled at the audit committee and the need for various versions?
- Why is the word ‘legionella’ not included in warning signs as recommended?
- Why did Lipshutz, a lawyer on the audit committee, not insist that the report go to council?
- This issue is far from resolved. What Glen Eira Debates can claim is that we have at least forced Newton to produce the full text of Penhalluriack’s memo to the Audit Committee. We doubt very much if it would have been included in tonight’s agenda items unless we had not analysed and made a fuss about this selective editing!!!!
April 6, 2011 at 9:18 AM
This whole issue is a result of second rate Inspectors who issued the weakest report I have ever seen. What Glen Eira, did you expect the Audit Committee to do? How do you know they did nothing? Tell us Glen Eira, do these facilities exist in other municipalities? Why did a Councillor take this matter to the Audit Committee and not the Council? What stopped Frank from asking his public question in September? If he was that concerned about the health of our residents and staff why did it take him so long to ask a Public Question? It appears that the Mulch Bin has been closed on Frank’s thoughts and not on indepedant scientific evidence.This Council is a joke.
April 6, 2011 at 9:50 AM
I find it incredible that all councillors now admit that there is now a “risk” to the community and even a “danger”. Where was Magee and Lipshutz when the report went to the Audit committee? Did they actually read the report, or did they simply take the word of Newton? This is nothing else but a cover up that’s intended to keep other councillors and the public ignorant. Even more damning is the tardiness of Newton in implementing the full recommendations of the final report. It’s now months later and this hasn’t been completed or done properly.
The Audit Committee is nothing more than the handmaiden of the administration. It has not done what it’s there to do – mitigate against all potential risks, no matter how remote. By not acting and informing other councillors (as a governing body) it has placed council and ratepayers at risk. It should never but never have taken Penhalluriack’s persistence to get action, or at least awareness of what’s going on. Audit Committees are meant to be proactive, not reactive under pressure.
This is what happens when members of such committees have been there for far too long. Lipshutz must go, and so must McLean and Gibbs. I also urge councillors to investigate and refer the matter on to the ombudsman. If this can be covered up then god knows what else has been covered up.
April 6, 2011 at 10:17 AM
Colin you have no idea what you are talking about . The Audit Committee consists of 2 Independant, highly experienced Chartered Accountants and 2 Councillors nominated by their Collegues. No Officers are members. I do however agree with your conclusion and in my opinion the Ombudsman should also investigate a certain Councillors behavior very closely.
April 6, 2011 at 11:06 AM
Crikey, every single time Lipshutz and blabber mouth Tang open their gobs they just dig a bigger hole for themselves where size 14 shoes will comfortably fit. Hey Lippy, the testings already been done. Don’t you read stuff that put under your nose in audit committees? I’m repeating what Frank said “‘exposure to shredded mulch can carry a risk of exposure to various fungi, yeast and moulds and bacteria, including legionella’. That’s what the experts said. Reckon you’ve got a problem with English or a touch of newtonitis. Now Tangy me boy,if your gunna be a lawyer hope the examples you pick can’t be so easily demolished cos this doesn’t sound too good for a sharp shooting lawyer. About your suggestion for constant testing and reopening didn’t you listen to Forge? stuff can take thirty years to develop and what about in between testing. The bacteria doesn’t always hang about from month to month. It could be there one day and gone the next week. The only way to be sure is to close it and keep it closed. but hey, as an ex member of the audit committee sounds like you’ve also been infected with the non action disease that is rampant in that committee. Whatcha reckon?
April 6, 2011 at 11:10 AM
Glen Eira what is the relevance of Lipshits being a Lawyer? The other question that requires an answer is why did Cr Penhalluriack take this matter to the Audit Committee and not insist the Report go to Council? One law for your mates and another for your enemies. Show some consistancy at least.
April 6, 2011 at 12:42 PM
Anonymous you may find the following extracts from the VLGA ‘Good Governance Guide’ of relevance –
S/he (CEO) is responsible for the quality of advice, good administration, effective and timely implementation and for making every effort to support councils and councillors in delivering good governance. (http://www.vlga.org.au/site/DefaultSite/filesystem/documents/Good%20Governance/2010/GGG%20councillor-CEO%20relations.pdf
Possibly the most important role CEOs play in promoting good governance is through the culture they are able to create in the organisation. If the CEO embeds in the organisational culture the concept that councillors are at the apex of the local government structure, and that the administration’s operations exist to support good governance, the organisation is more likely to embrace democratic governance principles and practice.
Also, CEOs who believe and promote the concept that councillors are not an adjunct or impediment to some objective concept of efficiency, but rather reflect the will and aspirations of the community, which everyone in the council should be committed to serve, good governance is more likely to be achieved. [good governance guide: http://www.vlga.org.au/site/DefaultSite/filesystem/documents/Good%20Governance/Good%20Governance%20Guide%20-%20March%202004.pdf
April 6, 2011 at 11:12 AM
good on ya frank. at long last you are doing what any independent councillor should be doing. speak out your mind loud, clear and in the open to ensure the council debates issues and makes decisions on the basis of all facts possible to get. the job of councillors is to find out by their own research, independent sources and networking with the community as much as possible to inform themselves and ensure that the decision the council makes is in the best interest of the community they represent.
in its role each councillor has a fiduciary duty with a ‘joint and several’ obligation for the whole council (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_and_several_liability). similarly in its representative role each councillor represents ‘joint and several’ individual resident or ratepayer or any combination of them or their or communities.
clearly neither lipshutz nor his protege tang understand this. lipshutz tells anyone that wants to listen that he is the only real lawyer on the council. that means tang is still inexperienced, a student requiring close supervision and mentoring. it also means that tang is not an independent member of this council and is in a dependent relationship with lipshutz or andrew newton when he was a mayor, twice.
i think tang should understand that as a public figure as all councillors all your public utterances are subject to scrutiny, interpretations and misinterpretations. the council is probably the worst possible environment to get your professional experience as a junior lawyer. as a mayor you have made many mistakes. people do not like public figures like councillors and politicians making mistakes or decisions that affect their lifestyle choices. the public has long memories and do not forgive easily. at this stage of your life and professional development you are limiting your future options. it seems that your ambition exceeds your experience and capacity to perform well. you cannot carry out your proper duty as a trustee. you do not attend all advisory committee meetings you are on. your relationships with your constituency is poor as you do not answer their messages. you are a failure as a councillor. i imagine that this is simply because you have loaded yourself up with more work than you can handle ie bite more than you can chew. i can only guess, but your family relations are probably suffer as well. i think you should seriously consider your life position as the way i see it is what you are doing is not doing much good now or for the future.
in comparison kate ashmor, also a junior lawyer at the time, performed much better and understood weel her limitations. i imagine that she is doing very well in her articles and she will do ell in her professional career. i also think that because of her realistic approach to whatever she does she will achieve what she wants and have support of people in the things she does or wants to do. so when she does come back to serve a community as a councillor say, i feel she will do an excellent job.
cr tang, your capability to do an excellent job is there, but you are failing. ask yourself why? and do something about it!
April 8, 2011 at 8:46 AM
Great. No more free mulch. I just wish the people at the Council would stop politicking and think about us, the ratepayers, for a change. Now we will have to go and buy it from the shops, the closest being Penhalluriack’s just down the road (do you think Cr Penhalluriack may have a vested interest here?). As far as I can tell the commercial stuff carries the same warnings on the packaging that Cr Penhalluriack is so concerned about. Why does he continue to sell it in his own shop if he thinks it is so dangerous?
April 11, 2011 at 8:39 PM
Frank sells mulch.
April 11, 2011 at 9:57 PM
Anon, I will bite if no-one else could be bothered. Our audit committee has failed us as has our administration. Don’t blame Frank when he has to go to such lengths to bring out a severe risk out in the open. Why was a BBQ area removed to make way for a Council tip – err sorry, mulch facility. And right next to a kiddies playground and high school. I used to take my grandchildren to the playground until the tip – err mulch facility was built….and if they get sick, I will be going straight to the lawyers to sue this stupid Council and it’s ratepayers (including myself). meanwhile we have an administration that does’t care and an audit committee that has failed it’s duty. I have not heard anyone lose their job over this stupid decision to place the tip – err mulch facility there. As you are in the know anon, maybe you can tell me because if this occurred in a private company, heads would roll.
April 20, 2011 at 9:07 PM
My good man John C.
Do you know what this means?
“The Local Government Act sets out requirements for the conduct of councillors, obliging them to declare certain interests and prohibiting them from voting on matters in which they have a conflict of interest, as defined under this Act.”
Click to access Conflict_of_interest_in_local_government_March_2008.pdf
Maybe ask your lawyers when you’re down there
Anon (different one)
April 26, 2011 at 6:54 PM
This comment really annoys me. Provisions of LGA shouldn’t be used to intimidate people into silence. The Anon above (tagged “different one”) strongly suggests Cr Penhalluriack has breached the requirements of LGA concerning conduct of councillors, specifically around conflict of interest. The comment however fails to identify any section of the Act that has been breached, and ignores completely S77A(4) and (5). Despite referring to it, it appears the author has either not read LGA, or forgotten all that they have read.