Newton’s name first appeared officially in the Commissioners’ report. He was listed as ‘council officer’ on the finance committee. Council minutes indicate that in 1997-8 his official job title was Director, Corporate Services in charge of Business Planning, Public Relations, Finance, Corporate Assets, Risk Management, Service Centre, Human Resources, and Business Development – a finger in all the most important pies! But what we want to concentrate on are some very, very interesting agenda items bearing his name. All involve disharmony, and the publication of internal documents that we consider totally unethical. Further, each publication has had the potential to discredit various individuals, whom we assume, may have been likely critics or opponents. Sadly, there appears to be a very long list of ‘opponents’. More significantly, a distinct and consistent pattern of behaviour, tactics and overall strategy can be traced back to these early times. They are still evident today.
Alan Grossbard, the first mayor of Glen Eira, appears to be one of these early ‘casualities’. Whatever one’s opinion may be of Mr. Grossbard, he is certainly well credentialed. The Glen Eira Annual Report of 1997/8 cites his qualifications as: B.Sc., B. Ed., Dip. Ac., MBA. MACE; MAIE, MPRIA, MGAA. We’re also told that Grossbard ‘has a strong background in business management, finance and corporate relations and is employed as one of the top executives in a major Australian company’. In other words, not a slouch when it comes to running a business. So what happened? Why were items published that had no right to be in the public domain and what was the objective? We’re referring of course to the Mayoral Gold Chain affair. Here are the facts:
- The minutes of 23rd June 1997 have Newton writing “The Mayor has proposed additional expenditures for Mayoral regalia and civic function to be included in the 1997-98 Budget”. (Please note the syntax – making it appear as if the proposal actually originated from the Mayor, who happened to be Grossbard) and the total listed for chains, brooches and links was $29,500
- There was of course a public furore over this and various articles in the Southern Cross regarding ‘communication rifts’ (16th July 1997); the chain affair (16th July 1997) and an advertising conflict of interest (16th September, 1998). A special meeting was called to refute all these newspaper claims.
- Investigation of all the above was delayed until 1998 and after the first Municipal Inspector’s report came in.
The important bit however IS THE PUBLICATION IN THE AGENDA of a Memorandum written by Grossbard and some of his personal correspondence to councillors and the CEO. The Southern Cross claimed that Grossbard had told them that ‘staff, other than departmental directors, had to report all conversations with councillors’ to the CEO. He further was alleged to have said that ‘The officers are afraid to give answers. It’s a scare syndrome’. So how best to haul Grossbard over the coals? Perhaps publish what could be seen as denigrating to Grossbard himself?
Well lo and behold, we get exactly that! A memorandum written by Grossbard (10th June 1997) to councillors and the CEO. In this memorandum Grossbard states “I would like to strongly recommend the following items be adopted in the 1997/8 budget’. There is then the itemised list of goods and costs, totalling $29,500.
In letter after letter to the newspapers, Grossbard claims that he was given the task of discovering the costs of such paraphernalia and that his memo was in response to this task. Further, that when the issue came up at council he was overseas and that the item ‘should not have been placed on the council’s agenda’. He further said that “I was asked by Council to find out what expense would be incurred if we were to commission collarette pieces for use as the City’s Mayoral Regalia. From the quotes I obtained I submitted the costs to Council. Unfortunately I was not in attendance at the Council’s meeting to stop the quotes being regarded as a proposal rather than general information for consideration only.” (21st July, 1997).
Whatever the rights or wrongs of this issue, two things are absolutely clear:
- The publication of internal correspondence – but only when it suits. This trend still continues.
- Governance issues, disharmony and lack of trust involving councillors and administration go way, way back and still continue – ie latest Municipal Inspector’s report.
- The attempted discrediting of critics and opponents via the publication of such documents. Again this practise is still rife.
- Selective editing that fails to give full context.
Glen Eira Debates 
June 12, 2011 at 8:18 AM
In criminal Law the intent of an action is critical in determining the guilt as well as the degree of retribution and especially punishment.
‘gleneira’, your reported incident is very illuminating and I am sure that there are plenty more Newton examples like this in the history of Glen Eira. It seems to me that Glen Eira was fashioned by Newton around his beliefs, attitudes, ambitions and his goals.
I think it is time to discover the ‘real Newton please stand up’. An inquisitorial approach is quite appropriate. Watch this space.
June 12, 2011 at 2:18 PM
The Whelan report analised every major complaint Grossbard had ever initiated against the CEO. In fact 10 pages of the 100 page Report are taken up with these complaints. Not one of any of Grossbards claims is found to have any substance and I agree with Whelen when he questions Grossbards credibility.When Chartered Accountants were asked to report on Grossbard and Goudges Telephone use they recommended an Inspector be brought in to further investigate. In the entire Whelan report by 2 Inspectors there is only praise for Andrew Newton. Cr Pilling named you Glen Eira, and if he is accurate then you need to come clean and answer for you extreme dislike of the CEO.
June 12, 2011 at 5:43 PM
Anon, I really feel sorry for you. You’re on a sinking ship – can’t you see that? Let’s examine the case against Grossbard & Goudge. Yup, telephone bills were too high. Gosh, shucks, what a hanging offence that is. But why oh why didn’t Newton alert them of this fact? That’s his job, he’s supposed to know exactly who does what and how much money goes where. No, no, no. He kept his gob shut just waiting for the right opportunity to use this information. Christ, I’d like to sack every councillor who hasn’t got a bill of $2000 on his mobile cos that means that he isn’t doing his job . And speaking of phone bills how come nothing has been published on councillor expenses for at least 2 years. This is supposed to be reported on ain’t it? Anon fair dinkum I sympathise with you cos you really and truly know in your gut that Newton and the gang ain’t got a hope in hell of clinging onto their jobs. Just wait and I betcha we’ll learn more and more of all the dirty tricks that have been going on. Skeletons in cupboards always rattle real loud and Newton’s probably got 20 or so cupboards chockablock.
June 12, 2011 at 10:12 PM
I think we are responding to a former councillor, in fact I am sure we are. The style is recognisable.
June 13, 2011 at 11:56 AM
Newton was brought in by Douglas her old buddy. Read the Walsh Report. Everything stems from this.
June 12, 2011 at 10:20 PM
You don,t have a clue Mr Aleck. The CEO is appointed by the Council and anwerable to the Council. He would have advised the Mayor of the day and it would have been the Mayor who would have taken appropriate action. Remind me Mr not so Smart Aleck who the Mayor of the day was. I’ll give you a clue . It is the same fool who today resides over a divided waring Council. By the way if you don’t know who the current Mayor is then you are not alone.
June 13, 2011 at 11:00 AM
Yes Cr Margaret Esakoff was the Mayor at the time of the Whelan Investigation. But the setup was already prepared a year before when Cr Bury was the Mayor. He was feted by the administration and if you have a look at Glen Eira News at the time you will see how wonderful he was as he did his ceremonial duties representing the Administration. Yet, the Council was clearly divided as the pre-eminent Mayor candidate at the time was Cr Jamie Hyams not Cr Esakoff. But he did not get the numbers. So who were the Councillors: Alan Grossbard JP, Dorothy Marwick, Noel Erlich (Orrong Ward); Jamie Hyams, Bob Bury, Margaret Esakoff (Jasper Ward); Veronika Martens, Rachelle Sapir, Peter Goudge JP (Mackie Ward). Of real significance is that Cr Hyams did have the numbers! So what happened prior the election of the Mayor March 2005 that Cr Hyams did not stand although he did stand and lost to Cr Bury in March of 2004?
Inspector Merv Whelan Report explains in his letter to the Minister Candy Broad “I have completed an investigation into governance and other issues at Glen Eira City Council in accordance with the Terms of Reference issued by you on 9 December 2004 and submit”. Furthermore, “On 28 September 2004, the Glen Eira City Council requested the Minister for Local Government, the Hon Candy Broad MLC, to appoint an Inspector of Municipal Administration to investigate and report on matters arising out of an audit of Councillors’ expenses by its Internal Auditor, Pricewaterhouse Coopers (PwC), in particular breaches by Councillors of the policy relating to the use of Council supplied telephones.” and “It should be noted that the Terms of Reference went beyond the PwC audit.”
Of great interest is that the greatest complaints came from Crs Grossbard, Marwick, and Goudge, who saw this investigation as an attack on their integrity and professionalism. All of them were recognised by the community as the best representatives for their Wards and communities. They were all critical of the CEO while they were Mayors. But what about the other Councillors? Crs Bury, Esakoff, Hyams were newcomers and were still learning the ropes. Cr Sapir was the young Labor Party hopeful ineffective, confused and clearly under influence of the Administration.
That leaves the stalwards from the Caulfield Council days Crs Martens and Erlich. Erlich and Grossbard relationship is perhaps the most interesting and intriguing. They were friends and helping one another before amalgamation times. But something happened during Glen Eira times and they became enemies to this day. In particular Noel Erlich does not forgive or forget and became the ‘bully in the shop’ as evidenced by the fist fight that happened at one of the Council meetings. This is the toxic mix that is being exploited to this day by the detractors of Glen Eira Council. One suspects that money was involved to get to this stage. Whose money? Cr Grossbard or Cr Erlich? Any guesses?
June 13, 2011 at 11:08 AM
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought the municipal inspector had already been appointed before Esakoff became mayor, so the mayor while Goudge and Grossbard were doing the wrong things with their phones would have been Bob Bury.
June 13, 2011 at 5:32 PM
Confused,Esakoff was Mayor the entire time Whelan Inspected the Council. Her total lack of leadership was one of the main reasons Council was sacked.Also she failed to inform Council of an extreme misuse of Goudges mobile as disclosed by a Cr Martens Council question. By the way information provided to Esakoff by Administration.The re-appointment fiasco which is 15% of the Whelan Report was on Esakoff’s watch, and this more than anything, lead to the Council dismissal.Conflictor Bob Bury died a few years ago and if you knew this then you are a low life.Bob on his watch called in PWC and then the Inspector.He was a man of great integrity and greatly respected by many.They say there were at least a 1000 people at his funeral.As to Grossbard, Marwick and Goudge, if you read the Whelan report you would not have used the word integrity etc. Grossbard and Marwick were disgraced by the report and Goudge had to face the Melbourne Magistrates Court and then was sued by Council.As for Cr Erlich assaulting Grossbard you left out Felman. They had something in common.The Police following exhaustive investigation and interviewing many witnessess found that the so called assaults never took place and dropped the entire matter.As to money you are 100% correct.Cr Erlich was in a small way responsible for Cr Grossbard having to repay Council for the misuse of his Council phones.
June 13, 2011 at 6:38 PM
Yes clearly you think Noel Erlich, who you seem to know so much about, was a far better councillor than Esakoff. Perhaps you can tell us all how many votes Erlich got when he ran against Esakoff in the 2005 election. I’ll give you a clue. It was less than 800. And how many did Esakoff get? About four times that.
June 13, 2011 at 10:36 PM
there were many witnesses to the scuffle that occurred at that time. it was initiated by erlich who did not like the verbalising of grossbard. erlich always had a short fuse and exploded many times before. the scuffle was close to the gallery and feldman sought to separate the scuffling couple. the amazing fact is that erlich got out scott free from the police investigation. but then erlich had an ally in paul burke who is close to the caulfield police station and other victorian police personnel.
there are other examples of this closeness. one particular nasty one is cheryl forge about two years ago (before she became a substitute councillor) received a letter from the police questioning her purpose of going to the community forum organised by the brumby government in east bentleigh. the letter also mentioned don dunstan as suspect to be investigated for the forum. don was not even on the list of attendees.
forge has bitterly complaint about this letter at the forum. the suspicion is that glen eira administration was involved. and in particular paul burke with whom cheryl forge crossed words at that time. so far this issue has not been resolved. other people also had unpleasant encounters with this bully. every time he gets away with it. how long will glen eira tolerate a person who disdains the community views?
June 13, 2011 at 6:08 PM
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm smells like a rat. get rid of them all!
June 13, 2011 at 11:36 PM
Forthright are you for real.The then Leader tells us that the so called Grossbard incident took place prior to a Council meeting with no members of the public present.Forthright, Felman was not there. Therefore forthright you are a poorly informed individual only interested in re-writing history.Your assertion about Cr Forge is incomprehensable.As for the stupid comments about the Police next time you enter the Council Chamber have a good look around.You may notice the CCTV camera.That is why the Police dropped the matter.It never happened.Grossbard invented the incident to divert away from his telephone problems.As to the previous comment about the number of votes Esakoff received,I remind you that many of the worlds worst leaders were re-elected many times.
June 14, 2011 at 8:44 AM
you can fool some of the people all of the time, you can fool all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all the time.
anonymous, if cctv camera did not show the incident then there may have been a number of reasons for that: it was not switched on; it was tempered with; cctv was introduced after this incident. whatever the reason a full report was not made public as to the reasons for the police dropping the case. they just announced it. that in itself is significant.
probably, most significant is that the person in charge of information (or disinformation) dissemination is also in charge of governance. these two functions should be done separately with the governance function conducted totally independent of either the councillors’ or administration. the present arrangements are fraught with opportunities to manipulate situations to suit that particular individual or the clique in charge of the council affairs.
June 14, 2011 at 7:28 AM
Looks to me that ‘Code Red’ is well established in Glen Eira. After all Paul Burke has an army background from the intelligence corp. He knows how to operate without being caught red handed and being protected by the powers that be. And he is in charge of Governance in Glen Eira!
But he does not order Code Red. That belongs to the commander in chief Andrew Newton. There is a fundamental question that needs to be asked of Andrew Newton – “Did you or did you not order Code Red on Frank Penhalliurack?”
Do we have a trial lawyer on this Council to ask that question?