All from the Whelan Report –
The CEO allows Councillors to have access to Directors but not management staff, to protect the organisation from negative influence at that level.
The CEO and Directors are, in reality, the strategic planners for the Council. Councillors have tended to focus on the “micro” issues.
Councillors do not appreciate what constitutes good governance and do not understand their roles and responsibilities. Further in his view, they do not provide effective community representation.
Some residents met the Inspectors about particular issues, such as planning permits and child care centres. Criticism in these cases was often directed at both Council and the administration, usually about lack of appreciation of their particular concerns, together with inadequate communication and consultation processes.
Conversely, the Councillors have difficulty in exercising their major responsibilities of strategic planning, policy making and strategic decision making.
At a Council meeting held on 29 April 2002 the CEO raised various issues relating to occupational health and safety. He alleged that the Council had failed to provide him with a safe working environment that was “without risk to his health”.
The CEO argued that he had been harassed by a letter written by Crs Grossbard and Erlich to the Mayor and Councillors, the then Office of Local Government and himself on 4 April 2002
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
On 9 February 2003, the CEO notified all Councillors that he had initiated a dispute between the Council and himself.
On 5 May 2003, following the elections in March 2003, the Council resolved to:-
a. “Seek legal advice concerning the Notification of Dispute and related matters pursuant to the employment contract between the Council and the CEO of the City of Glen Eira.
b. Authorise the Mayor to engage the legal firm Arnold Bloch Leibler, 333 Collins Street, Melbourne and to brief this firm immediately.
c. Authorise expenditure up to $8,000.
d. Require a further resolution of Council if expenditure is likely to exceed that specified in paragraph c.
e. Require Arnold Bloch Leibler and Council to maintain confidentiality on these matters.”
It sets out at some length, the circumstances in which the services of the CEO may be terminated. Further, it refers to a number of complaints made to the Ombudsman on 14 January 2003 by Crs Grossbard and Erlich about issues concerning the manner in which the CEO is performing his role
The Inspectors found no correspondence on Council files between the Council and ABL.
Cr Goudge said he wasn’t aware that advice on termination was to be sought from ABL but he was not surprised, given the political nature of relationships at the time and the “obstructive” behaviour of the CEO
Cr Grossbard claimed that Mr Bramham of Macquarie Lawyers from whom Council obtained the advice, was not independent because he was involved with the Council in arranging a termination agreement with a previous CEO (Ms Douglas) and was on friendly terms with the then Mayor, Cr Kennedy
Cr Erlich said that he was involved with Cr Grossbard in providing a submission to the Ombudsman concerning the CEO which, in hindsight, he was “ashamed” about. According to Cr Erlich, Cr Grossbard gave information to ABL because “… he did not get on with Andrew Newton
“There is ample evidence of repeated unreasonable behaviour directed towards one or more individual Councillors or a group of Councillors. This has created a risk to health and safety. The unreasonable behaviour means behaviour that a reasonable person, having regard to all the circumstances, would expect to victimise, humiliate, undermine or threaten.
She said the CEO was not “forthcoming in providing her with answers”.
She alleged that Paul Burke (DCR), “…is inappropriately crafting the outcome….” and “…in order to create a false impression of what has actually taken place…” .
“he is an empire builder”;
“he does not run a democratic organisation”; and he has developed “a culture of intimidation”.
Glen Eira Debates 
October 19, 2011 at 11:19 PM
This blog is a disgrace. Anyone who has read the Inspectors Report would realise that you have quoted out of context.
October 20, 2011 at 9:44 AM
Sure, the Whelan report found that these allegations were “unfounded” – but that means bugger all. Each investigation has been a white wash. The important stuff is that the same ol’ bull is still going on. Newton causes division. That’s as plain as the nose on your face. He plays hard ball all the time with his lawyers threats and councillors cave in. Which other ceo has been bullied so often? Poor bugger. such bad luck to keep running into all these bullies isn’t it?
October 19, 2011 at 11:58 PM
Back to the future all right. Bullying, lawyers, obstructionisms, wimpy councillors and Newton and Burke the empire builders.
October 20, 2011 at 7:27 AM
From my dealings with Councillors and the Admin over the past 5 years, I’d say that two phrases pretty much sum up the way this Council operates
. “inadequate communication and consultation processes” and
. “inappropriately crafting the outcome”
It’s really time for a change of leadership, both elected and appointed.
October 20, 2011 at 10:05 AM
History certainly sounds like it’s repeating itself but without the exposure of previous times. Now it’s all more secret, with few leaks. I would think that when the same issues and allegations keep cropping up again and again then there’s something really amiss with this council. I also think that in any organisation the culture is set from the top. Councillors certainly don’t set this mindset – they come and go at each election. If reports are accurate then the investigation merry go round is continuing unabated. It’s time councillors put an end to all this backstabbing by appointing a new ceo and some new senior executives.
October 20, 2011 at 1:03 PM
IT SEEMS THAT NO MATTER SHO IS ON COUNCIL THE PROCEEDURES DO NOT CHANGE! sO WE MUST SEEK OUT THOSE RESPONSIBLE WHO REALLY HAVE THE AGENDA AND MAKE ALL THE DECISIONS!!!!! fUNNILY IT HAS BEEN LIKE THIS FOR MORE THAN A DECADE NOW.
October 22, 2011 at 12:18 PM
Newton arrived in 98 and by 2000 was ceo. Just two years later there’s the first claim of unsafe workplace. This theme is played out again and again. In the meantime there’s the sudden disappearance of Douglas and qustions of signed cheques. Guess who was finance officer at the time? Littered throughout the intervening period are the charges of victimisation, obstrucctionism and plenty more. There’s a real lesson in all of this. Newton clings desperately to his job so if Lipshutz and Hyams think they’re earning any brownie points with him they’d better take a really close look at history and see the corpses of councillors lying all over the place. Loyalty is non existent and thankyous are short lived. Numero uno is all that counts.