From The Leader, Jenny Ling – Page 3
COUNCILLOR PROBE IS CONFIRMED
The Local Government Investigations and Compliance Inspectorate has confirmed it is investigating “a matter related to councillor (Frank) Penhalluriak”.
The Camden Ward councillor riased health concerns about Glen Eira Council’s free mulch service and the possible risk of residents contracting legionnaires’ disease, which led to the removal of the service in April (“Mulch to fume about” Leader April 26).
Councillors voted 7-2 in favour of removing the service at Glen Huntly reserve, leaving the $160,000 mulch storage shed – built in 2009 – empty.
In May the inspectorate said it was reviewing conflict of interest allegations made against Cr Penhalluriak who owns a hardware store in Caulfield that sells mulch. “Upon receiving a complaint, the inspectorate reviews the information…in order to determine if it is within jurisdiction and contains suitable evidence to investigate,” spokeswoman Angela Smith said at the time.
Ms Smith confirmed last week the inspectorate was now investigating, but would not make further comment. “Each investigation is unique and it is therefore not appropriate to anticipate a specific time frame for the resolution of any case,” Ms Smith said.
Cr Penhalluriak said he was not aware of the investigation. “If I did it would be confidential so I can’t make any comment,” he said.
Glen Eira Debates 
August 2, 2011 at 8:41 AM
I know Cr. Penhalluriak well enough to say his mulch sales through his hardware outlet many kilometres away would have not entered his mind.
August 2, 2011 at 10:46 AM
Rubbish. Everything Cr Penhalluriak has ever been involved in has been for his own benefit. I just hope that any investigation is widened to include the suitibility of Frank becomming a Cr given his relationship to disgraced former Councillor Goudge,his Nominee.Is this the reason he is attacking the CEO?
August 2, 2011 at 5:17 PM
Yup Goudge really deserved to be hanged and quartered. How shocking that he let his son use his mobile phone! Couldn’t be that he also asked Newton embarrasing questions like stuff about officers’ expenses or questions about officer harrassment of councillors. Nah, that’s not the reason why Newton got rid of him. It was all about phone calls. If you believe this bunkum then nothing can save you anon.
August 2, 2011 at 8:21 PM
I think that the toyman is back on this blog.
August 2, 2011 at 11:40 AM
Murdoch press at its finest. And last week The Leader chose to focus on a reduction of $24000 from State Government rather than the decision to spend an unbudgeted $450000 to pave over more public park for carparking at GESAC. Shouldn’t be hard to guess who provided the tipoff to The Leader about yet another Investigation. Some might argue it constitutes harrassment and bullying.
From LGA 77A(4): “A relevant person does not have a conflict of interest in a matter if the direct interest or indirect interest of the relevant person is so remote or insignificant that the direct interest or indirect interest could not reasonably be regarded as capable of influencing any actions or decisions of the relevant person in relation to the matter.”
If it has taken the Local Government Inspectorate 3 months already, you’d have to wonder about either the clarity of the legislation or the ambiguity of the situation. I thought 77A(4) covered it back then and I still think so. Has somebody produced sales figures to show a spike in sales of (pasteurized) mulch in Glen Eira? The dominant factor in the decision was public health and safety, the poor operating practices of the facility, and its insensitive placement adjacent to where vulnerable children congregate.
August 2, 2011 at 7:42 PM
Once again you’ve hit the nail on the head Reprobate. The Leader story focuses on legionella. Penhalluriack’s concerns extended far beyond this, but that’s not what the story wants to highlight.
The other facet of the story that should raise many eyebrows is the concern about kangaroo courts and the manner in which the Inspectorate operates. It’s all very well to keep complaints secret and to investigate them. But it’s another matter when the person complained about has no inkling of what is going on and is not given the opportunity to defend himself against what are potentially bogus claims. I’ve no reason to doubt Penhalluriack when he says he knows nothing about this.
I also have real worries about the ability of these so called inspectors to do their jobs properly and their terms of reference. They are limited by the Local Government Act and its strictures and vagueness. What should happen is that the investigation should be widened beyond conflict of interest and real questions asked about the performance of the administration. Employees should be interviewed and full documentation demanded of the instructions that these workers had when anywhere near the mulch heap. Were they given masks so that they wouldn’t breathe in the dust? Were they given gloves? How visible were the warning signs for the public? How many of the people who worked on the mulch called in sick with asthma and other respiratory complaints and for how long has this been going on? This would be a proper investigation, not the farce that has currently been going on. There’s also the important issue of why it was placed near a playground, school, picnic area to begin with. Which idiot decided that this was appropriate? Why was this decision made and who should take the blame for this? If the Leader was genuine in its public comment section then let it run a survey where parents are asked the basic question – ‘do you want the mulch near a playground that your child uses’? I’ve no doubt that the vast majority of parents would come out and say ‘no’.
August 2, 2011 at 2:39 PM
More ratepayers money wasted – and all to prevent Penhalluriack’s devious schemeing to corner the Caulfield mulch market.
If the Local Government Investigations and Compliance Inspectorate wishes to be taken seriously perhaps they should look at
1. Whose snout was in the trough when a small three side mulch shed was built on free land at a cost of $160,000, or
2. The current manoeuvrings aimed at destroying heritage so the favoured developer can make a second squillion.
There are plenty of other issues that could be added to the list – perhaps others would like to add them.
August 2, 2011 at 7:18 PM
Don’t forget Lipshutz and Tang when their sons and mates are not getting fined and others are and Lipshutz complains about this to Burke to ‘fix it’? How about all the decisions that happen behind closed doors and how about the total absence of transparency in everything that happens? My vote definitely goes to Penhalluriack and I’d vote for the devil before Lipshutz gets any of my preferences.
August 2, 2011 at 3:21 PM
To insinuate that Frank would try and profit from selling extra mulch shows the intelligence of the people making complaints. It is pretty obvious who they are. They will be seen for what they are trying to acheive.
August 2, 2011 at 4:30 PM
Who leaked to Ling? Who’s got the most to gain if Penhalluriack is removed, shut up, penalised? Penhalluriack’s “crime” is that he asks uncomfortable questions about ratepayers’ money and the way it is used and the veracity and comprehensiveness of officers’ reports. That’s his job as far as I’m concerned. And he’s doing it well. The tragedy is that other councillors don’t seem to get the idea that that’s what they should be doing as well. When squillions are spent on needless refurbishments, lawyers, countless foul ups as in gesac, then every director and councillor needs grilling.
August 2, 2011 at 4:58 PM
I can only hope that The Leader had the foresight to interview the other 6 councillors who voted for the removal of the mulch shed and to record their responses as to why they voted in favour of Penhalluriack’s motion. I can probably assume that this did not occur because it doesn’t fit in with what is clearly an orchestrated attempt to taint this individual. I also don’t expect to see these councillors coming out with Letters to the Editor explaining why they also voted for the removal. No, they will shut their mouths and let all the criticisms be borne by Penhalluriack. This puts the lie to the statement that this is a cohesive and well functioning council and group of councillors. As for the quality of the reporting, or the Leader’s editorial policy, once again I conclude that its relationship with administration is highly suspect and that this needs full investigation – not Penhalluriack and the few extra bales of mulch he might just happen to sell.
August 2, 2011 at 9:06 PM
Smart Aleck you don’t have a clue . It was Grossbard who you are referring to and if you recall Goudge was taken before the Melbourne Magistrates Court on the recommendation of the Inspector where he pleaded guilty to a very serious misdemeanor. He further settled a law suit where he repaid the City of Glen Eira 10K. He was Frank’s nominee and one can assume Frank should have known what Goudge was up to.
August 2, 2011 at 9:37 PM
oxymoron – ‘serious’ and ‘misdemeanour’! Yup, plead guilty as charged – it was Grossbard re phone use. However, it was still Goudge who good and proper got up Newton’s nose wasn’t it? ya just can’t have councillors asking about officers’ expenses that are kept hush about can ya? and god forbid that you reckon that some officers are nothing more than bullies.
August 2, 2011 at 9:48 PM
Be certain that Goudge has a long memory.
August 2, 2011 at 9:15 PM
we draw readers’ attention to the following Leader ‘Code of Conduct’ – only the first part is copied here.
Professional Conduct Policy
This policy applies to editorial employees of the newspaper operating divisions of News Limited: Nationwide News Pty Ltd, H&WT Limited, Davies Bros Limited, Advertiser Newspapers Limited, Queensland Newspapers Limited and the regional and suburban newspaper operations around Australia
News Limited group publications aim for the highest editorial and ethical standards. Editorial employees and contributors should be open-minded, fair and respect the truth. To this end, all need to be familiar with the policy detailed in the following pages, to follow the rules they contain, and to apply their underlying principles.
This policy is published by Group Editorial
1. Accuracy
1.1 Facts must be reported impartially, accurately and with integrity.
1.2 Clear distinction must be made between fact, conjecture and comment.
1.3 Try always to tell all sides of the story in any kind of dispute.
1.4 Do not knowingly withhold or suppress essential facts.
1.5 Journalists should be reluctant to rely on only one source. Be careful not to recycle an error from one reference source to another. Check and check again.
1.6 Direct quotations should not be altered except to delete offensive language, protect against defamation, or to make minor changes for clarity.
1.7 Reports of new drugs or medical treatments must be considered with great caution. It is easy to raise false hopes or alarm among readers. Cross-check all claims with responsible and neutral sources.
1.8 Photographs may be enhanced to improve reproduction, but must not be altered in a way which could mislead readers. Care must be taken to ensure accuracy in captions. The editor must approve any alteration or manipulation of a digital photographic image, and the alteration must be explained in the caption before publication and archiving.
2. Mistakes
2.1 Serious factual errors should be admitted and corrected at the first opportunity, subject to legal advice where appropriate. Individuals or organisations that have been criticised in News group publications should be given a fair opportunity to respond.
2.2 No employee or contributor is allowed to commit the company to an admission of error, correction, or apology without reference to the editor. Senior editorial staff and/or company lawyers must be consulted about the wording of corrections and clarifications to determine their suitability and whether an “offer of amends” is an appropriate response in settlement of a complaint.
2.3 News Limited supports self-regulation in the newspaper industry and participates in the activities of the Australian Press Council. Editors are expected to publish all Council adjudications on complaints by the public in respect of their newspapers.
August 2, 2011 at 9:24 PM
As a ratepayer raised this problem with all councillors as I have documentation of a teacher becoming unable to work due to respiratory damage caused by damp conditions, and strangely enough one of the councillors who had sat in silence at my earlier letters to three mayors suddenly on the “big voting night” when support for the said councillor looked loke a good idea rose to his feet and uttered the following” I worked in the timber industry and after very few years I became an asthmATIC and I needed one of these (producing his puffer) and he added most timber workers become asthma sufferers” Funnily enough I think the material in the mulch heap contained bark and tree ttrunks exactly the same material as the other councillor indicated had damaged his health and that of many other timber workers|
August 2, 2011 at 11:43 PM
I have a great deal more faith in investigations by the Local Government Department than in any possibility that the council can address its own problems.
Remember the Whelan Report? Whelan canvassed the views of the community as well as councillors and officers – and actually took notice of what the community was saying.
Over many years I have been involved in numerous council and State Government consultations and inquiries and have sadly found that only the State Government officers paid any real attention to community input. Anyone remember the last time council actually made any significant decisions based on community input?
The concerns raised on this blog about the behaviour of other councillors and officers should be raised with the Local Government Dept. They are obliged to investigate them.
I am in no postion to make any judgement about Frank regarding this latest investigation. A complaint has been laid and I am confident that it will be dealt with fairly. Frank has nothing to fear if he has done nothing wrong.
However, concerning Frank’s backing for Goudge, Frank certainly tried to distance himself once it was apparent what Goudge was up to. He even suggested that he didn’t actually know Goudge very well and was just doing him a favour because he asked. Pull the other one Frank.
August 3, 2011 at 12:05 PM
I just can’t agree with you. Have a read of the last inspector’s report and all is clear. Their jurisdiction is limited primarily to the LGA and that’s it. If the LGA doesn’t cover the area then they’re hamstrung, or if the alleged complaint can be neatly excused because of the vagueness of the legislation then there’s “no case to answer”. I also can’t agree with you that 3 and now 4 investigations will sort anything out. Previous ones have not changed a thing except for some minor “recommendations” about governance that council ignored anyway. All I’m saying is that Municipal Inspectors are nothing more than window dressing removing a few corrupt councillors here and there and that’s about it. They seem to be only interested in councillors instead of officers. That’s where the legislation has to change and these people have to be made more accountable. Until this happens then Municipal Inspectors are generally a waste of yours and mine money.
August 3, 2011 at 1:00 PM
Appreciate what you are saying Peter but according to Inspectorate website they can investigate council officers, and I’m sure they have in the past.
“The Inspectorate’s jurisdiction is set out in the Local Government Act 1989 and encompasses all councils, councillors and senior council officers.”
See http://www.dpcd.vic.gov.au/localgovernment/about/inspectorate
August 3, 2011 at 12:31 PM
Peter you are 100% wrong.If you read the Whelan Report you will note that the numerous allegations against Administration made by Marwick and Grossbard were fully noted and investigated.No adverse findings were made against Staff however the Councillors integrity was seriously challenged.The problem regarding the independance of the Inspectors is 100% accurate in that they answer to a Political animal called a Minister.