Can a leopard really change its spots? It doesn’t appear so. We’ve recently learnt that Andrew Newton has made allegations of bullying against Penhalluriack. This is now being ‘investigated’ by a council hired lawyer – and probably at great expense to ratepayers. As far as we understand this is simply an ‘informal’ process to determine the validity or otherwise of the allegations.
What is immediately apparent is that such tactics are not new to Andrew Newton. He has tried this tack before as noted in the Whelan Report. We quote:
“The letter referred to a report which the CEO presented to Council following a trip by three Councillors (including Grossbard and Erlich) to the Council’s sister city, Ogaki in Japan. It stated, in essence, that the administration had submitted a report to the Council about the trip which was inaccurate and denied them natural justice, and that they would be issuing a press release calling for the dismissal of the CEO, Andrew Newton.
The Council sought legal advice from Macquarie Lawyers and Strategists and was advised on 1 July 2002 that the “… Council has breached its statutory obligation to provide a working environment that is without risk to the CEO”.
The legal advice proposed four recommendations, including:-
- adopting a Code of Conduct for Councillors in the form of a Local Law with sanctions; and
- providing a process for resolving disputes between the Council and the CEO.
Further, it stated that:-
“I am satisfied that the sending of the memoranda and the prior behaviour of Cr Grossbard as detailed in the CEO’s report constitutes conduct which challenges the CEO’s work environment which should otherwise be free of preventable harassment. Unless a remedy is found ……. it is likely that Council will remain in breach of its statutory obligations towards the CEO”. “
So here we go again. The tactics remain identical. When questioned, it appears that Mr. Newton brings out the big guns – ie. claims of intimidation, harassment, and bullying. So who is this Andrew Newton? What drives him? What motivates him? Why does intrigue and controversy dog his every move? Why from the time he set foot in Glen Eira has there been division, mistrust, and open hostility? We can lay the blame at various councillors – perhaps! We can also blame ourselves for electing dummies. But is this the whole story? We’ve asked before, what role has Andrew Newton played in the Glen Eira dramas of the past 13 years? What other individual in the entire state has been embroiled in three formal Municipal Investigations, and god knows how many other ‘please explain’ enquiries?
The central question is: how does he operate? What are the tactics that he has possibly used in these 13 years to silence critics or to discredit them? Have these all been ethical? legal? All we have to do is look at certain sections of the Whelan Report to note several things:
- Newton has employed the ‘safe workplace’ strategy to rid himself of certain councillors; this ploy we assume, has also succeeded in putting the fear of god into other councillors
- He has published information that has no right to be in the public domain
- He didn’t perform his duty of warning councillors and previous CEOs when he should have
Today, we have the same tactics being played out. This time it is directed at Penhalluriack – maybe because Penhalluriack has the temerity to actually be doing his job and asking what constitute uncomfortable questions of the CEO? What residents need to consider carefully, is whether this is the man they want to continue at the helm of the Glen Eira administration. How much is he costing us and how much will he cost us in the future? What impact will this new ‘investigation’ have on the reputation of this Council and its councillors?
WATCH THIS SPACE – MORE TO FOLLOW!
Glen Eira Debates 
June 9, 2011 at 7:29 PM
Where did Andrew Newton work prior to CEO of Glen Eira Council ?
June 9, 2011 at 8:18 PM
CV says commonwealth public service, then state public service and then Glen Eira. Sounds like little fish in big pond decides to become big fish in little pond. Why?
June 9, 2011 at 8:38 PM
Ask Margaret Douglas. The CEO that preceeded himself
June 9, 2011 at 8:42 PM
Next time, and I hope that time is soon, can we get someone from the private sector with some real smarts. Career Mr Humphrey’s is not the way to go in the current savvy world.
June 9, 2011 at 8:57 PM
Let me get this straight. As CEO you can fail to accurately report, communicate, produce strategy plans, provide a safe workplace for council employees (all of which creates a dysfunctional Council through promoting controversy and division while fostering croney-ism). Yet when called upon by a Cr. to explain, the CEO can charge that Cr. with creating risk for the CEO? Truly amazing – I’d like to see a company CEO get away with that when dealing with the Board of Directors.
The charges are seriously misplaced – this website, accused of hypocrosy at the last Council Meeting, has grown phenomally in just under 12 months (over 100,000 hits). Crs should ask themselves why? I find it amazing that this success is shrugged off as the rantings of a few retired renegades – it should be causing some serious head scratching by Crs and the Admin. Glen Eira residents/ratepayers are frustrated – they are actively searching for answers and a way forward. Council and the Admin are not providing it.
In in typical fashion we get yet another stiff it to the ratepayers by Newt. Since we are paying for this “ïnformal process” shouldn’t our opinion be sought, shouldn’t we see the documentation?.
Newton’s last appointment was restricted to two years – should be due for review soon. Crs should not extend it and in the interests of cultural change should not appoint any of the 5 Newton syncophants in his place.
June 9, 2011 at 11:28 PM
Very soon after Newton came in there was a mass exodus of staff. The resignations just kept piling up and these were pretty senior people to. Think this says a lot about the cultural change that blew in with Newton and what people thought of it at the time – that no way would they stay in the place if they could help it. Of course this left the coast open for those you’ve named as the ‘5 Newton sycophants’.
June 9, 2011 at 11:36 PM
Actually that’s totally false. Many of the senior staff have been there for some years. Staff turnover is quite low. Newton is generally held in high regard by staff. Don’t know where you got that information.
June 10, 2011 at 10:42 AM
Your historical recollection is obviously very poor. Senior staff at the time that Newton gained major control left in droves – leaving room for many of the current occupants to move up. Even in 2001 Newton can claim that there was a 3% drop in staff turnover – that’s 3% less than the year before – not 3% overall. Have a look at the senior people’s names of that time and who is no longer there. That tells a story in itself.
June 9, 2011 at 10:30 PM
I think this time you have gone too far Gleneira. I am almost positive we will see a retraction and apology within a few weeks.Just because you have a personal issue with the CEO gives you no right to libel him.
June 9, 2011 at 11:21 PM
Oh dear Glen Eira, you have really jumped in with both feet on this one.
Your quoting of the Whelan Report shows just the opposite of what you are suggesting. It says that “Council sought legal advice from Macquarie Lawyers and Strategists and was advised on 1 July 2002 that the “… Council has breached its statutory obligation ….”. Not Newton – Council! All the investigations into Glen Eira Council have place the blame squarely with council. There has been no findings against the administration or the CEO.
And I certainly wouldn’t hold up Grossbard and Erlich as any sort of example of paragons of virtue. Far from it.
I give Frank some credit for ruffling feathers on council. That’s great. I am delighted to see that he has upset those leaders of the cosy council club, namely Lipshutz and Hyams.
But Frank has a track record as a bully who is used to getting his own way. He bullied local business people into supporting him for election to council. He has tried to bully council officers over development of his hardware store. He even built one construction without a council permit and was forced to take it down. Because council officers have prevented him from doing whatever he likes, he has a grudge against the CEO. After election he tried to bully Helen Whiteside into supporting him in council because she only got elected on his preferences – keeping out some genuine community-based candidates. Ask Helen, she might tell you about that. He is also on record as seeking favours from Cr Lipshutz for his personal interests.
Frank has not shown any interest in pursuing residents interests – only his own. How many ward meetings has he held? Remind me.
As I have said, I think it’s good that he has upset the ruling clique in council but so far he has shown little understanding of how local government works and how to be an effective councillor. It’s about time he learned.
June 10, 2011 at 6:19 PM
Glen Huntly, Agree with you that many Councillors have this NIMBY attitude and come to the Council to pursue their own hidden agendas. A perfect example of this is Cr Esakoff, three times Mayor. She came in to get rid off the skateboard facility as it would impact upon her property. She got her way on this IMBY issue. But when it came to a Non-IMBY issue on the future of the CEO in 2005, when she was first time Mayor, she just caved in to threats and intimidation and voted for Andrew Newton to stay. She got sacked anyway. That wasn’t good enough as she had more hidden agendas to push as the ‘heritage’ property fiasco suggests.
Glen Huntly, what about your IMBY issue of Booran Rd Reserve. Do you think we’ll have a synthetic soccer pitch there? Or should we perhaps have a FREE mulch distribution facility? Or a kinder playground? What would you like it to be? And do you know what our Councillors suggest there? Or maybe it’s ALL up to the CEO and his crew? If you were CEO what would you do?
June 10, 2011 at 10:29 PM
Re Booran Rd Reservoir.
Council seem to have already committed themselves to a sporting ground. They seem to be captives of the sporting clubs as most of the capital expenditure over recent years has gone on sporting pavilions and grounds.
But personally I think that’s laziness and a lack of imagination. And it’s a disgrace that, having been given the land, it appears that they in no hurry to do anything with it when the community is in such need of open space.
Actually, I do have suggestion which is a little more far-sighted than council’s vision.
Have you ever visited any community gardens? There are a number around Melbourne and they are terrific community meeting places. They contribute to a sense of community and provide healthy activity for people of all ages. Given the increasing medium-density development around Glen Eira the need to increase our public open space becomes more important. People living in these developments have no gardens or backyards.
A reasonable sized community garden would probably only need to take up about half the space and the rest could be developed as a passive recreation area – perhaps an indigenous garden. Then Glen Eira would have something of far greater community benefit than a synthetic soccer field.
Consider the possibilities.
June 9, 2011 at 11:48 PM
Glen Huntly, you disappoint me. I’ve always given you more credit for political and strategic nous than you’ve displayed in this comment. Of course Council has approved everything. That makes it 100% kosher and Newton comes out smelling like a rose. But who’s engineered and manipulated the whole situation and look who the lawyers are actually citing for their evidence – “as detailed in the CEO’s report”. Now that’s a really reliable source ain’t it, one that everyone can trust I daresay.
June 11, 2011 at 11:22 AM
This blog’s analysis of recent Newton answers are first class. The gap between what he puts down on paper and what had occured is miles apart. Very, very clever stuff. Never commit and never be precise. That’s the key to everything and means that you can get away with blue murder. Little things like the use of “councl” as opposed to “the Council” is the perfect example of disguise. Most people wouldn’t pick this kind of thing up but they are incredibly important and change the issue completely. Penhalluriack has got every right to ask for more information and answers that are prrecise and detailed. He’s done this and Newton’s response on this one is to try and assassinate him. What a lovely council we’ve got.
June 10, 2011 at 11:38 AM
I spent last night reading the Whelan Report. The number of allegations made and countered was incredible. Whether or not Whelan got it right, or whether the last investigation got it right, is irrelevant. It’s pretty obvious that the atmosphere and working relationships at Glen Eira are very toxic and have been for a long time. Someone in their comments pointed out that Newton was only reappointed for another two years. I agree that this indicates further turmoil. Right or wrong, guilty or innocent, Newton does attract criticism, that’s undeniable.
Councillors must take this into consideration when they come to deciding on the future CEO. This kind of backstabbing and accusation versus counteraccusation just can’t be allowed to continue. Newton should not be reappointed. Glen Eira has to restart with a clean slate by which I mean an entirely new senior administration and councillors.
June 10, 2011 at 3:41 PM
Gosh lawyers must love this council and Newton I’d reckon is adored. The money he throws their way coulda built GESAC maybe. Cripes, I forget, it ain’t his money most of the time but ours
June 10, 2011 at 7:52 PM
You’ve got it in one Aleck. Check out Hansard for all the dirt and here’s some more legal eagle intimidation practised by you know who.
5 May 2005 COUNCIL
________________________________________
Page 817
Glen Eira: chief executive officer
Hon. C. A. STRONG (Higinbotham) — The issue I would like to raise is for the Minister for Local Government. It concerns the appointment of the Glen Eira City Council’s chief executive officer (CEO). This appointment is now concluded, and I do not seek to reopen it. However, it seems to me that the process has some ramifications for future council CEO appointments that I think it might be worth while for the minister to look at. I will quickly outline those.
As we know, CEO appointments come up with a particular time limit. In the GlenEira case that time coincided with the appointment of a municipal inspector to the Glen Eira council. The councillors stopped the process of appointment pending reports from the municipal inspector.
As a consequence the CEO threatened legal action against the councillors in their personal capacity, not in their capacity as councillors, where they have a statutory obligation and statutory protection, which is some sort of indemnity. He threatened them on a personal basis, and, without reflecting on any of the individuals concerned, the councillors themselves presumably took some legal advice. For whatever reason, the councillors concluded that they were at some risk of being sued and losing their assets and so on. As a consequence they reversed their previous decision and went ahead to appoint the CEO.
It seems to me that the Local Government Act tries to make the appointment of the CEO an appropriate process whereby the councils will consider the issue.
Any sort of loophole, chink or ambiguity in the act which would allow a CEO to threaten legal action against councillors as individuals, without any form of indemnity for their actions, puts at considerable risk the probity of the process, because obviously if individuals are concerned that they are going to be sued and lose their personal assets they will act differently than they would if they were just acting as councillors with statutory protection. I ask the minister to look at those issues to see if there are any loopholes in the act that need to be corrected.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT — Order! The member’s time has expired.
June 10, 2011 at 9:04 PM
I think it’s probably relevant that Chris Strong was the Liberal member for Higinbotham and the dismissed council was controlled by Liberal Party members and supporters. Basically, Strong was playing party politics. I don’t think his statement can be taken as evidence of very much at all.
And his statement misrepresented the situation. Council had committed to reappoint Newton then reneged. This had all happened prior to the review. Newton threatened legal action over council’s deceit. Note that council had already spent substantial funds on legal advice to try to get out of their commitment to Newton – ratepayers money.
The Whelan review was prompted largely by the unethical behaviour of council over the re-appointment of the CEO.
To state that “The councillors stopped the process of appointment pending reports from the municipal inspector” is misleading. The process to appoint the CEO did not “coincide” with the review – the review was initiated because of the way the appointment was being handled.
June 10, 2011 at 5:02 PM
Now, to FACTS about the administration, not fiction. Particularly the fateful years immediately following the appointment of Messrs. Newton and Burke. (Messrs indeed)..
We understand that some former councillors, who at that time clearly failed their duties of directing and supervising the administration processes, would seek to support the failed administration. This is to be expected. After all, the very same councillors were supposed to responsible for Newton and Burkes’ failures.
Now, management theory tells us that ‘Staff Turnover’ is a reliable indicator of morale, and a good test of the effectiveness of the capabilities of management and administration. After all, it’s a case of cause and effect.
For the record, Andrew Newton first joined council as a Director in the 1990s. In 1999 he was appointed CEO, As CEO, he can reasonably said to be responsible for any failures of administration.
Also in 1999, Paul Burke had joined Glen Eira, as ‘Manager Council Secretariat’.In 2001 the new CEO, Andrew Newton appointed Paul Burke as Director of Community Development.
The first manifestation of the dramatic change in culture was soon evident. City hall became a seething hot spot of staff discontent, and mass resignations, all euphemistically called ‘staff turnover’. This culture soon boiled over, even into the Council arena, with vicious in-fighting developing between councillors. .The chaos of Glen Eira was now being debated in State parliament. Worse, the fisticuffs and verbal abuse was reported in the daily media. Glen Eira’s reputation was the pits.
The year following the 1999 Newton and Burke appointments, the staff turnover, according to official statistics, suddenly shot up to a staggering 20%. Just imagine the turmoil of one in five of all staff leaving in just 12 months. These grim statistics, and those quoted below, are from Councils own Annual Report for 2002 – 03 (page 81). They are straight from the horses own mouth, so to speak.
The following year, 2000/2001, the turmoil continued, with ANOTHER 18% of staff leaving. But that was not all, folks. The next year, still more left. 15% , in fact. The rot continued into 2002-03, when 11% flew the coup..So, in just THREE YEARS after Newton and Burke seized the reins, 53% of all staff had left, and in four years 64%. They had left in droves, voting with their feet. WHY?
Curiously, the gang of ‘Yes Men’ at the top of the heap seemed largely unaffected. Most of the fat cats had survived. All the Directors were male, except the (female).head of finance. She could not withstand the bully boys in the schoolyard. She resigned, jumped the sinking ship, All the while, the Council spin machine was at work. We were told Council kept winning ‘awards’ for efficiency, for prettiest Annual Report, and so on. Sadly, the Councillors had their heads in the sand, and – as always – were oblivious to the ruckus. They actually believed the propaganda department.
It was just like today, for times don’t change, and Leopards don’t change their spots.
June 10, 2011 at 7:12 PM
Your statistics make for a pretty compelling argument. Admittedly one might argue that some of the dead wood was gotten rid of, but in no way could this account for the figures you’ve produced. No organisation can lose that amount of people unless there is a very good reason for their sudden departure. In my experience worker dissatisfaction stems from frustration with top level management. If the boss is a bastard then people want to leave, or if the culture suddenly becomes draconian then that’s another good reason to get out. All that’s left are the ‘yes men’ as you’ve pointed out and they’re well rewarded for their complicity. All in all, the only prospect that I can see of real reform, and we certainly need it, is not to extend the current CEO contract. 10 and more years in any senior job is far too long. Glen Eira needs a new philosophy, and a new managerial approach that is welcoming of community participation and respects community views. With Newton in charge this ideal has been allowed to wither on the vine.
June 10, 2011 at 10:11 PM
Agree that on the face of it these are compelling figures.
So I was just about to make apologies for my earlier post.
But then I had a further look at the figures.
Fact is that about two thirds of council employees work in Community Services. Fact is that most are part-time or casual – making up more than half the workforce. Fact is that the 20% turnover was mainly from these workers.
So the logical conclusion of your argument “anonymous” (and by the way, why are so many people on this site “anonymous” – please at least choose a name so we know who we are talking to) is that a whole bunch of part-time and casual community service workers (presumably home help type workers) walked out because Andrew Newton was appointed CEO. Not sure about that one.
Did you know that in Australia average annual staff turnover of large businesses is 15-20%. The fact that within a few years, turnover was reduced to 10% is actually pretty impressive given that so many are casual and part-time.
I can’t really comment on whether senior managers jumped ship because Newton was appointed but i think most of them stayed at least a few years – and some are still there. Happy to be informed otherwise.
Please don’t think I am an apologist for Andrew Newton – he can obviously look after himself. I just think that blaming the CEO for all that is wrong with Glen Eira Council is missing the (very obvious) point.
June 10, 2011 at 7:31 PM
Fascinating stuff here. It is now very clear that this Council is divided into ‘old guard’ vs ‘newcomers’ The ‘old guard’ Crs Esakoff, Lipschutz, Tang, and Hyams are either Liberal Party members or supporters with the the view that they know best how to manage economy and run a Council. And the best way is to be doing it quietly, behind closed doors, ‘no surprise policy’, negotiate privately on individual basis, and present a united, decisive, but single voice at Council meetings. As to the public? Treat them like mushrooms ‘keep them in the dark and feed them bullshit’. As to fiduciary and fiscal responsibilities (‘God helps those that help themselves’) leave it to the capable CEO Administration, who clearly demonstrate their capabilities by winning reporting Awards time after time after time. Governance is what matters, but quality of living is an IMBY for themselves, their friends, and their own ethnic group. Outside that, issues of concern are NIMBY. Have you seen any of those 4 being really concerned with traffic jams, health of children, early education, struggling traders, public realm, blocked drains etc etc etc.
‘The newcomers’ or ‘babes in the woods’ Crs Magee, Pilling, Penhalliurack, Lobo, and Forge are in the majority. But they can’t even get a simple democratic Notice of Motion implemented. Amazing stuff. Can you imagine them able to handle a Budget? I am not surprised that they are loosing to the minority view time after time after time.
God help us, the community!
June 10, 2011 at 8:35 PM
How is that for prognosis of results at the next Glen Eira Council election. It will be the first time in the history of Caulfield/Glen Eira that Libs as represented by the ‘gang of four’ will be demolished and we will have either Labor, Greenees and independents forming the Local Government. Ted Baillieu Libs should watch this development, because it may also impact upon David Southwick vote with Caulfield District going to Labor. After all how can David run on the slogan of ‘working with community’ when his fellow travelers, Hyams, Tang, Esakoff, and Lipshutz are doing just the opposite.
But then may be David will get in line with their local fraternity and ignore the community views. He has already turned on the racecourse issue, and accepted the MRC proposal under pressure from his party leaders. From there, it is a small step to follow Lipshutz and say “the community has a vote only once in four years”. In between elections “I can do whatever I like, and I can do no wrong”.
June 15, 2011 at 10:16 AM
For someone claiming to be a political junkie I thimk you are right off the pace. Lipshitz will easily be re-elected. He is an excellent councillor. We are fortunate that he lends his experience and time to our city.
June 10, 2011 at 10:26 PM
I thought it worthwhile to look how this Council is to nab Penhalliurack. This is clearly the intention of Andrew Newton and Councillors that supported this ‘investigation’. But the how is critical. Our English based system is adversarial in its working. But that is not apparently how this investigation is conducted. ‘gleneira’ understands that it is “simply an ‘informal’ process to determine the validity or otherwise of the allegations”. But is it?
There is another legal system well recognised in administrative procedures, the inquisitorial system. Here is how it works “An inquisitorial system is a legal system where the court or a part of the court is actively involved in investigating the facts of the case, as opposed to an adversarial system where the role of the court is primarily that of an impartial referee between the prosecution and the defense.” In the current case it seems that the Council on advise from the CEO has appointed a lawyer (an inquisitor) to conduct the investigation and he/she “could summon and interrogate witnesses of its own initiative, and if the (possibly secret) testimony of those witnesses accused a person of a crime, that person could then be summoned and tried”.
The history of inquisitions is very well known to many creeds and individuals: Cathars (12th century); Protestant Vaudois (12th to 16th century); Jews & Muslims (15th to 19th century); Hindus (16th to 19th century); scientists (Copernicus, Galileo, Bruno); chinese literary heretics (Qing & Ming dynasties) and many more examples.
Shame on you Glen Eira Councillors, particularly those with Jewish background who, given the history of persecution should know better, that you allow yourself to be used for that particular abhorrent inquisitorial method to besmirch your fellow Councillor. You are a disgrace all of you.
June 11, 2011 at 11:10 PM
Shame indeed! A bunch of absolute wimps led by the nose in every underhanded scheme that Newton & Burke concoct.
June 11, 2011 at 12:35 AM
All of these comments have provided plenty of food for thought. The vast majroity whilst not necessarily agreeing on the finer points, are certainly agreeing that there is much wrong with this council, the administration and our councillors. As a result (and because I was curious) I clicked on all the categories that the site has cllassified its posts under. Governance was streaks ahead and planning and consultation seem to be next in order of frequency. In lots of ways, all of these are connected and all boil down to how a place is run and governed and what’s its underlying philosophies really are. It’s pretty clear that the so called “vision” of this Council, and which is printed on the cover sheet of every council meeting, is nothing more than window dressing. So who do we blame for this? We, as ratepayers must share some of the blame for allowing such processes to continue. Only 5 submissions to a budget that will put us in hock for years and years simply lets everyone off the hook. The argument of course has been that people get tired and ask themselves what’s the point since I’m never listened to. That’s part of the problem. But I don’t see too many things changing unless there is some real “activism” and real opposition to the imposition of policies that do nothing for the well being of residents. That’s the first point I want to make. Call it a rallying cry if you like.
As to my second point of whom to blame, well I definitely blame the administration for its deliberate plotting, it’s undoubted playing of favourites, and its deviousness and secrecy.
I also blame councillors who only pretend to listen and then fail to act, or those who like to pretend that they really give a stuff about what the residents want or think. When planning decisions are brought down that have the potential to literally ruin people’s lives (like my sister’s) then I’m angry as hell for the lack of respect her views have been given by any of these councillors – and she has phoned and phoned and spoken until she’s gone hoarse! I blame the arrogance of Lipshutz and Hyams and the ego trips of Esakoff and Tang. This is no way to run a council. Forget your egos and start thinking about all the people whose lives your decisions impact on.
Now we’ve got this new kangaroo court that is supposed to be investigating charges of bullying against Penhalluriack. Are we really living in China where any opposition is carted off to prison. If Newton can’t stand the heat then he should simply get out of the kitchen. It’s unbelievable that we’re spending money on an exercise in vindictiveness, because that’s what I see this is all about. It’s literally get Penhalluriack week and we’re the ones paying for it. So what if he’s asked Newton some questions. If more councillors asked more questions then maybe, just maybe Glen Eira would be a much better place to live in. I’m not holding my breath, but I am putting my faith in residents once they finally understand how rotten this whole damn council is.
June 11, 2011 at 5:54 PM
Here are some allegations about Newton and the gang that should be investigated. (1) not working in the publics best interests only working for select groups with power and money (2) doing the least possible to get community involvement such as limited advertising (3) prefering secrecy in everything to openess (4) using spin instead of the truth (5) closed shop in committees (6) never admitting to a mistake (7) lousy officers reports (8) gagging of councillors (9) bullying and intimidation against critics. There’s plenty more but this is plenty for starters
June 14, 2011 at 9:18 AM
Council are standing strong over the GESAC sport allocation debacle. Without Council knowledge the Basketball tender was awarded to an ‘out of City’ group. The future of the McKinnon Basketball Association and its 1400 players would certainly be threatened. GESAC is a facility for the people, not a cash cow.
June 14, 2011 at 1:22 PM
Brendan, this concerns me greatly. If residents are spending up to 40 million of their rates on building GESAC, then the least they should get is preference for facility allocation. Since this hasn’t happened, then it’s anyone’s guess as to how many other local clubs are missing out. GESAC isn’t a lottery, nor should it be a case of highest bidder wins. If residents are paying for something then they should get first bite at the cherry. If councillors knew nothing about the allocations, nor the selection processes, then this is a very black mark against them. They should have known, or at least asked becuase they are bound to look after finances and make sure that all decisions are in the best interests of the local community. It’s obvious they didn’t do this and the administration was quite willing to keep them in the dark on such important matters.
June 14, 2011 at 3:12 PM
Correct Colin. The Council, instead of rubber stamping the contract, have put it on hold while the ‘process’ is investigated. There would be no problem if allocation was to a similar body from within Glen Eira….although apart from Maccabbi Basketball, who field teams within the McKinnon Basketball association, there is no other similar body!
I believe the Administration firmly trust in the ‘highest bidder wins’ theory and have forgotten about the word ‘Community’.
The Councillors are fabulous to stand strong once they found out.
June 14, 2011 at 4:20 PM
Bloody typical. The autocrats do things their way without telling councillors and only when a stink arises do they sit down and put everyone into the picture.