It is now four weeks in a row that the Caulfield Glen Eira Leader has run stories on the infamous ‘mulch heap’ – 3 on the front page. No other story in recent times, including the sacking of Council and Newton’s threatened legal actions have achieved such prominence. One has to seriously wonder why? One also has to seriously consider Penhalluriack’s view, stated at Council meeting, that there is an orchestrated campaign going on here. If so, then who is behind it? What undue influence is being brought to bear? Why has the Leader largely ignored the Occupational Health and Safety issues that this whole saga centres on? Why is Penhalluriack being singled out when 6 other councillors voted to close the facility? Why hasn’t the Leader questioned anything about the role of the Audit Committee and its failure to act in a timely manner? Why hasn’t the Leader basically asked the fundamental question, which is:
If safety precautions such as clear, unambiguous warning signs, sprinklers, masks, gloves, etc. are now seen to be essential in mitigating any risk to workers and the public, then why weren’t these precautions taken years ago? Does this mean that for years and years Newton and council have been negligent in their Occupational Health and Safety obligations? And why, oh why, was this facility ever placed near a playground and school? Who is responsible for such an appalling decision?
We’ve also learnt that instead of publishing a letter by Cr. Penhalluriack in response to the Leader’s coverage, all they did was pinch his headline for their own (negative) story!
Surely good journalism involves checking one’s facts, investigation of sources, rather than simply relying on Newton’s reports and the spin of media releases by Council. We have no doubt that residents were baffled and even upset by the decision to close the facility. It is therefore even more incumbent on any newspaper to ensure that the facts are available and that the story is written without bias and without the hint of undue influence. This has not happened.
Today’s ‘story’ by Jenny Ling is below.
Mulch service rethink: Cultivating support has paid off for gardeners
GLEN Eira Council has bowed to public pressure and is looking at relocating their much loved mulch service.
Nearly two months after councillors voted to remove the free service from Glen Huntly Reserve, officers have been told to prepare a report detailing the costs and feasibility of reinstating it.
In a statement, Mayor Margaret Esakoff said that ‘‘in response to community sentiment on the closure of the mulch facility, council wants to determine if there is a different location for it within Glen Eira’’ . ‘ ‘ All necessary measures would be taken if a suitable location is found to ensure associated risks are fully addressed,’’ Cr Esakoff said.
Gardening enthusiasts were outraged when the council closed the facility after two decades due to health fears — fears that were rebuffed by health authorities and gardening experts.
At the May 17 meeting, councillors voted six to one to investigate other sites. Cr Frank Penhalluriack — who raised concerns of legionnaires’ disease after reading reports on the internet — voted against it.
Deputy Mayor Jamie Hyams said he expected the report to be finished within two months.
If reinstated, the mulch service would be away from a school or children’s playground, he said.
There would be a ‘‘greater emphasis on safe handling’’ and an automatic sprinkler system to keep dust down, because dust could harbour airborne bacteria, he said.
‘‘It was obviously a service that some members of the community valued, but we have to weigh that up against any health risks,’’ Cr Hyams said.
Glen Eira Debates 
May 31, 2011 at 12:01 PM
The Caulfield Leader has achieved one thing – dragging the reputation of responsible journalists and editors down into the mud – or in this case the bacteria ridden mulch heaps that Newton ignored for years and years. Sorry, but all I’ll ever use the Leader for is to wrap up my scraps of refuse before they go into the bin!
May 31, 2011 at 12:23 PM
Anonymous, you are going a bit far calling Jenny Ling reputable and responsible. Most of her articles are either written by Paul Burke from Glen Eira Council or Brian Discombe from the Melbourne Racing Club. Another study, another paper, another $180,000 wasted on another facility in another park which only a couple of people want all for a bit of mulch which is available for free at any Tree Services Company in the area. What a joke!
May 31, 2011 at 4:35 PM
Today’s Leader had 3 pretty decent sized ads about Amendments in. Of course these ads are much much bigger than anything that has to do with consultation. I’d hazard a guess that we’re looking at least at the very minimum $1500 worth of advertising and probably a lot more. The Leader’s interests are to ensure that this advertising continues and they’ve figured out the best way to ensure that it does through their journalists and editorials and what they decide to publish or not publish. Of course they can rationalise and talk about editorial independence, but this doesn’t exonerate them in the public’s mind.
May 31, 2011 at 12:39 PM
Glen Eira could you remind us of the Victorian Government’s view of our former Mulch Facility and tell us where the Glen Eira Consultants Report suggested closure? Also tell us which Councillor sells dangerous mulch requiring Warnings, and is it possible that Councillor will benefit financially?
May 31, 2011 at 1:06 PM
Dear Anon,
if you would care to check back over our previous posts you should find:
1. The Victorian Department of Health HAS IN FACT ISSUED A WARNING ABOUT MULCH, SOIL and other garden composts.
2. The scientific report included the notation that their testing would not be adequate for locating legionella
3. The report made very strong recommendations regarding the safety precautions that SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED IMMEDIATELY. It apparently took Newton at least 2 months to get this right
4. If Penhalluriack has to rely on the sale of mulch to run a successful business, then he will be out of business in a few weeks time no doubt. Further, he addressed the issue of potential conflict of interest, which is more than other councillors have done on other occasions.
5. The real issues here are the role of the Audit Committee, the role of Newton, and why neither acted in a timely and potentially responsible manner to ensure that the community was at no risk.
May 31, 2011 at 7:23 PM
I am glad the Leader keeps the issue going because it keeps the spotlight on an incompetent audit committee(ie Gibbs, McLean and Lipshutz) and an incompetent administration(Herr Newton, Burke and Waite). The sooner we get rid of these clowns, the better off will be Glen Eira.
May 31, 2011 at 3:09 PM
Why don’t ya just give up anon? Penhalluriack is the most popular councillor. He got the most votes and will again. He’s also got the balls to ask uncomfortable questions of your buddies Newton and Burke in the public interest. That’s what all councillors should be doing and not playing the lackeys like Lipshutz, Hyams, Tang, Esakoff and Pilling. Get rid of these bods and we finally might have a half way decently run council that looks after its residents.
May 31, 2011 at 2:18 PM
No one has explained why the recommendations included gloves and the necessity of a sprinkler if everything is hunky dory and there’s absolutely no risk involved. As gleneira says if they’re necessary now they were necessary years ago. This means that workers especially have been going along doing their jobs in total ignorance of how they could be injured as a result of their work and not only by legionella but other bugs and stuff. If it’s necessary now then this means that risk management in this council is lousy and they’re not doing their jobs properly. The leader is nothing but a beat up as well.
May 31, 2011 at 4:09 PM
If Penhalluriack did write a letter to the Editor and it wasn’t published then this is unforgiveable. He’s obviously the target, instead of the other 6 councillors. There’s been plenty of mail to the editor about this issue which has been published. But not Penhalluriack’s. You don’t need to be a genuis to know who are what is behind all this.
May 31, 2011 at 8:05 PM
As sure as night follows day Frank’s Letter to the Leader will appear during the next Council Meeting. We all know he is a very successful person who is not adverse to seeking publicity. How can he sell potentially dangerous products such as Mulch.
May 31, 2011 at 10:38 PM
Penhalluriack sells commercial mulch. That means that every single pack has an explicit warning on it about bacteria and legionella and advises consumers to wear gloves and masks. It is also what is known as ‘pasteurised’ mulch. The Glen Huntly facility contained non pasteurised mulch. Hence the danger and the difference.
June 1, 2011 at 9:23 AM
Colin, if the Mulch Frank retails is that safe, then why the huge Warning on the rear of the product. Hypocracy is alive and well.
June 1, 2011 at 9:49 AM
You’ve totally misrepresented or simply misunderstood what I’m saying. No one is claiming that commercial mulch is safe. That’s why it’s obligatory for this material to contain warnings. In this way the consumer is alerted to the potential danger and health risks. If a consumer doesn’t comply, then that’s his problem. Council failed to include such warnings on its mulch – which is probably ten times more dangerous than the commercial version because it is unpasteurised. Then there’s also the problem that they let workmen go into this pit without gloves, masks, didn’t turn the mulch over regularly and didn’t have an adequate sprinkler in place. Council has an obligation to provide staff with the necessary equipment that doesn’t threaten their health; to provide proper training and to also warn the public. None of this was done. The only hypocrisy that exists comes from the administration and the non answers that Newton supplied in an attempt to cover his arse.