We’ve previously reported on the allegations of bullying and harassment made against Cr. Penhalluriack by Andrew Newton. We’ve also highlighted the fact that such allegations are not a new tactic by Mr. Newton – as evidenced in the Whelan Report.
We believe that it is in the public interest to reveal some further information on this issue so that the record is set straight and people may make up their own minds as to what is actually going on. The facts are:
- Council (rather than WorkSafe) hired Ms. O’Neill to conduct an ‘investigation’ into the bullying allegations
- Ms. O’Neill is a lawyer specialising in workplace issues
- Two residents were interviewed by Ms. O’Neill at the request of Cr. Penhalluriack
- These residents were asked for their views on the ‘interactions’ between Cr. Penhalluriack and Newton at 4 separate Council Meetings. They were also asked for their opinion as to whether these ‘interactions’ were ‘appropriate’
- The specific council meetings primarily involved Cr. Penhalluriack’s Request for a Report on meetings between the MRC and Newton; the mulch heap fiasco and the Boyd park grant for drainage.
Both residents confirmed the following:
- Penhalluriack was fulfilling his legal and fiduciary duty in highlighting possible health risks which could place Council (and its employees) at risk if not attended to. It was also noted that only two councillors voted against the motion. Hence a majority were in agreement with Penhalluriack
- That as a councillor Penhalluriack has a legal and fiduciary duty to ensure that funding is spent in the most cost-effective manner and to the benefit of the residents of the municipality
- That other councillors over the years have also expressed ‘disappointment’ with the content, comprehensiveness, and overall quality of officers’ reports. That current councillors, apart from Penhalluriack, have questioned procedures and the need for cost-benefit analyses in reports.
- That in their view, Penhalluriack’s language, demeanour, and questioning of officers is perfectly appropriate given his role and legal obligations as a councillor. At no time could either resident perceive these ‘interchanges’ as bullying and harassment.
Admittedly, neither of these residents are privy to what goes on behind closed doors. They could only attest to what they had witnessed. However, several points need to be made:
- Are we really and truly expected to believe that a seasoned bureaucrat like Newton suddenly feels threatened because a councillor sees fit to ask uncomfortable questions in public and/or in private? Or that he demands reports that are detailed and comprehensive?
- Should residents accept the silence and refusal to answer public questions on how much this investigation has cost them? We have stated before that any lawyer worth a cracker would probably be charging somewhere between $150 and $400 per hour. Then there’s also the writing of the report and god knows how many people were interviewed. So what is the pay out to O’Neill? We hazard a guess that it could be well over $30,000.
- History tells us that the bullying card has been played before by Newton. Really amazing that a man who has worked in Canberra and at State level and undoubtedly experienced much pressure in these jobs, should twice in 6 years suddenly feel ‘bullied’ by mere part timers, who ostensibly, are simply doing their elected tasks.
- What further machinations are being played out behind closed doors, since the in camera items continue to feature ‘Occupational Health & Safety’ items which we presume relates to this affair?
We’ve also stated several times that the history of Glen Eira is besmirched with dismissals, disagreements, and now 4 Municipal Investigations. All (serendipitously) coincide with the arrival of Newton. He remains the solitary common denominator in all these trials and tribulations. The next month is thus crucial. Councillors must decide whether to anoint him for another 2 years, or seek a new CEO that will bring a breath of fresh air into Glen Eira and transform what many residents see as a repressive and out of touch corporate culture.
Glen Eira Debates 
September 23, 2011 at 9:19 AM
Lets get Ms. O’Neill to look at PB bullying ways, remember Newton called in the police to savage the residents that dared to stand up to him at Lord Park.
I support Frank to the hilt, and will vouch for his non bullying ways.
September 23, 2011 at 9:57 AM
Ya just can’t teach an old dog new tricks. Frank asks too many questions so shut him up and it’s win-win cos ya scare the others into silence to. What a bunch of wankers.
September 23, 2011 at 10:18 AM
I don’t know how anyone can have any confidence that this is a functioning council when scandal after scandal shows up. The only course of action open to councillors is to find a new CEO. It’s obvious that his position is already precarious since his last appointment was only for two years. Giving him another two years is just asking for more trouble.
September 23, 2011 at 2:03 PM
Rightly or wrongly disharmony dogs Newton. This justifies concerns about his managerial style and the future course that should be set. Ten years in any high ranking position is enough. Glen Eira needs a clean sweep and a new start. The stouch with Penhalluriack is only the latest in a series of “scuffles” with various councillors that have been continuous and seem never ending. My solution would be to eliminate this factor and elections can eliminate the others.
September 23, 2011 at 11:29 AM
It’s as plain as the nose on your face that recent attacks on Penhalluriack have been orchestrated. There’s the stupid conflict of interest claims about mulch because he happens to sell mulch with people conveniently ignoring the votes of all other councillors. Next there’s the successful gagging of Frank over the C60, leaving the way clear for the gang of four to get it passed. Now there’s this. If this isn’t a deliberate plan to discredit Penhalluriack and shut him up then I don’t know what is. He has every right to ask questions and to get Newton to account for his actions and the way money is spent. If other councillors are prepared to accept on face value whatever is dished up as officers reports without questioning and without demanding evidence, then they are failing their residents and the jobs they were elected to do. I’d rather listen to what Frank has to say anytime compared to the recent guff that residents have been subjected to from Lipshutz and his gang.
September 23, 2011 at 4:48 PM
Frank’s always big noted himself. The big shot business man whose made a killing on countless deals. This time he’s just bitten off more than he can chew.
September 23, 2011 at 5:44 PM
Yes a big shot business, who takes risks with his own money on his own terms. Just like us all, give or take a fair few 000.
Not a fat cat bureaucrat living off Glen Eira ratepayers. If Newton is that good! he would have a high flying position in the real world, not stuck in the back-waters of Glen Eira. Time to go Mr Newton “The Bell Tolls For The”
September 23, 2011 at 10:43 PM
Newton’s getting over $300,000 plus how many other perks, and he can’t handle a few questions. Oh the poor sensitive bugger. I’m being bullied, oh woe is me, help, help. Maybe if he did his job properly then the questions might stop. On ya Frank!
September 23, 2011 at 6:08 PM
I don’t mind admitting that I’m pretty confused. The Whelan report also wrote about the use of lawyers and here again there are lawyers involved. What I don’t comprehend is why this didn’t go straight to Worksafe which is the body that should deal with this kind of issue. The blog also implies that it was Council, meaning councillors, that hired this woman to “investigate”. I honestly wonder how objective anyone can be when they’re paid by the organisation they’re supposed to be investigating? Worksafe would have been truly independent and objective. Could someone please explain some of this to me?
September 23, 2011 at 7:05 PM
I am a bit perplexed with all of this. Is it not appropriate for those whom we elect to ask questions? Is it not appropriate for them to request information they need (to make good decisions on our behalf) be available and understandable? Should we not be happy that someone we elected truly wants to be involved in what the issues are? Should we not be happy that tough questions are being asked . Shouldn’t the answer come so that they can be evaluted properly? Should we not be happy that we live in a society where the elected officials are truly working for us?
I think there is only one answer to all these questions. Don’t you?
September 24, 2011 at 1:50 AM
Mr. Newton thinks it OK for people to ask questions, what pisses him off, is when people don’t believe his BS answers.
He lives in a corporate construct were control and (Moderators: word deleted)… has been refined and perfected. You cannot see, smell or hear, its there embedded into the very fabric of the hierarchical work-place model he worships, everyone knows their position and everyone knows their penalty for transgressing it.
Loose cannons without that fear, like Frank are a big problem, I bet Frank has lots of quiet support among the junior staff at the town hall.
Newton in his own clumsy way is desperately trying to adopt the language of modernity with a paper façade. Hiring lots of junior female officers with the latest lingo, Communication, consultation, opportunity, Green and leafy, sustainable, affordable, best value, there is no end to his wall-papering. These young aspirants churn out nameless and faceless, shonky corporate documents, all PR veneer masquerading as progression and modernity, all being feed to us like TV commercials, consumed and instantly forgotten by the corporate machine.
The reality is calling in the cops at Lord park, or calling in the lawyers to protect his power base. He and his misogynist sycophants, that line the back wall of the council chamber died years ago, they just haven’t visited a doctor to be pronounced deceased as yet.
September 24, 2011 at 11:45 AM
Could be a good reason why last Tuesday’s Council minutes are yet to be posted!
September 24, 2011 at 11:46 AM
The old adage if you can’t stand the heat then get out of the kitchen applies here. You’re right Glennie. Newton, Burke and the others can’t stand anyone questioning them. Their bullshit answers for years have been unchallenged and where they were challenged all stops were pulled out to discredit the challengers. Same thing now. Difference is that people are wising up. Planning, traffic, governance are a disaster under Newton and people are seeing this. His time is up. He should start looking for new employment and slither off into the sunset and take Burke with him.
September 24, 2011 at 11:16 PM
Fools. Can’t you wait for the outcome of the investigation. What we have here is a blog written by someone prosecuted by Council on more than one occassion, and contributed to by anonymous imbiciles.How can you say that we don’t know what happens behind closed doors and then on the basis of so called observations made in open Council assume that the CEO’s actions are questionable.Who were these 2 residents. Frank’s wife and manager. Our CEO is one of the best in the business and any detailed analysis of this Council would easily prove this. This situation was caused by weak Inspectors or the pathetic Government. The fact that Frank was accussed of impropriety questions his suitability. Fools
September 25, 2011 at 9:34 AM
For starters, “fools” and “imbiciles” are not good terms to use if you want to be taken seriously.
As for the CEO being the best in the business, 4 municipal inspectors reports would appear to indicate otherwise. As would the dysfunctionality of Council and the fact that residents continually claim poor governance lack of accountability and secret deals. Additionally, the fact the this investigation is even occurring highlights the dysfunctionality of Council and the toxic relationships that exist between Councillors and Councillors and the administration.
Let’s face it, a group of supposedly above average intelligent, mature, community spirited folk cannot get on and have opted to take the heavy handed legal approach at significant cost to the residents who elected that person. Tell me Anon,
. is this what you would expect or consider approriate
. does this indicate function or dysfunction.
September 25, 2011 at 11:17 AM
You wouldn’t be Burke’s wife or an ex councillor would you Anon?”This situation” hasn’t been caused by anyone other than the principal actors and that’s the administration and a whole string of different councillors.
September 25, 2011 at 1:26 PM
It’s pretty easy to be “the best in the business” when you’ve flogged off every bit of real estate and on top of that raise rates continually – including the highest in the state over about 20%. Problem with that was that it wasn’t legal and the government stepped in and changed the law to stop Newton. The sell off still hasn’t stopped. Only public pressure called a halt to the Packer Park sell off. Now we’ve got the sell out of the C60 for a measly few million. Rates still go up and up. Even your imbeciles could run the place with that sort of philosophy.
September 25, 2011 at 5:16 PM
I suspect that the CEO has threatened to take some form of legal action if he is not re-appointed for a further 2 years. It worked for him last time so why wouldn;t he try it on again. Simple plan, lay the bait for someone like Frank, as soon as he bites set up the dispute then play it out while all the other Councillors sit back dead scared to move against him. The more they know about the law the weaker are their knees, especially Tang. He can’t have any blemishes on his CV, he would be the weakest of all of them. Every decision he makes is about how he will be seen. He had done it for so long now he doesn’t even know he is doing it.
September 25, 2011 at 11:50 AM
Gimmeabreak, give-us- break
read this quote from Harry Truman after he sacked the famous General MacArthur
” I fired him because he wouldn’t respect the office of the President. I didn’t fire him because he was a dumb son-of-a-bitch, although he was, but that’s not against the law for generals. If it was, half to three-quarter of them would be in jail.
Substitute CEO’s for Generals, and there you have it
September 25, 2011 at 1:09 PM
Agreed Glennie, the CEO does not respect the elected representatives. Councillors are either played like a fiddle or are disregarded and when that doesn’t work there is always the legal system to play with, compliments of the ratepayers.
Ratepayers want and expect more from both Councillors and the Admin.