|
- we were rated 1st in the State for “responsiveness in dealing with the public” (84%), May 2011
|
|
- we won the Institute of Chartered Accountants / MAV award for Best Annual Report by a Victorian Council (June 2011)
|
|
- we are the only organisation in the Victorian Public Sector to receive a favourable Performance Audit by the Victorian Auditor General during the current Term of Parliament. (Performance audit of investment planning and community engagement, September 2011)
|
|
- we were rated 1st of 17 inner-metro councils by the Auditor General for Renewal of Community infrastructure (November 2011)
|
|
- we eliminated waiting times for Kindergarten for our juniors and Home Care for our seniors (2012)
|
|
- and we have built Melbourne’s best Aquatic and Recreation Centre (“GESAC”): under budget and about to open in April 2012.
|
Glen Eira Debates 
March 28, 2012 at 1:02 PM
It”s a snow-job, fresh from mumbles desk
I wish the CEO would put this much effort into actually living up to his self promotional nonsense, as he does promoting it, we all might be better off.
March 28, 2012 at 9:18 PM
Take a look at the homepage. Right under the ombudsman’s report Newton or his underlings have moved the old, old, Auditor general’s report to be directly underneath. Mind you, not the one that tells us about poor liquidity ratios but the one from last century that compares totally disparate councils and how wonderfully well Glen Eira has handled gesac. Betcha if the auditor general was to do another report right now there would be a different conclusion.
March 28, 2012 at 2:47 PM
this just makes me so angry over the mulch! Penhalluriack put up his own sign at the facility and has been found to have a conflict of interest. So everyone in Glen Eira suffers. Noone should shop at his hardware again. Go to Home hardware East Malvern or Normandy Rd
March 28, 2012 at 4:35 PM
Actually, I suggest you check the Council Minutes, Frank was not the only Councillor who voted to remove the mulch elsewhere – the majority of Councillors voted for it. That an alternative location has yet to materialise is the responsibility of the administration. Tang requested a report of alternative locations months ago and it’s yet to appear.
March 28, 2012 at 6:52 PM
Frank did his own research on the ‘internet’. cmon. Department of health said it was a load of rubbish. Frank gets his own consultants. They agree with him!. Off course other councillors will follow Frank’s ‘independent’ consultant report. Read the report it says there was a conflict of interest and Frank made 2k more for his business with increase mulch sales
March 28, 2012 at 7:13 PM
Actually MRC you are totally wrong. For starters the Municipal Inspectorate actually reviewed the mulch fiasco and found that Penhalluriack did not have a conflict of interest. The Ombudsman did not do any research, just took what Council presented to them.
Additionally, if read the Ombudsman report carefully, 2K is the total gross revenue for a year of mulch sales (bulk and packaged) – not a huge sum. If you factor in a generous profit margin of 10% and include the packaged sales rather excluding them the end result is a humungous $200. Hardly worth the effort.
March 28, 2012 at 6:21 PM
The most disgusting comment by any Mayor in living history has just been uttered by Hyams on Channel 7 news. He said that Penhalluriack was “used to getting his own way” and therefore couldn’t deal with the “constraints of local government”. Not bad for a non practising lawyer prejudging a vcat hearing and damn good at slinging dirt to cover up his own role in this affair.
March 28, 2012 at 6:33 PM
Frank has a hardware shop with a sideline of garden supplies, mulch wouldn’t be a minute fraction of a fraction of Franks concerns. He should have been more careful with his interests if he expect the same from others
I will still shop at Franks outlet because what he has done is not a hanging offence, and on balance he has done more good than harm with the ship of fools that is the Glen Eira management
Like Prince who changed his persona to a symbol and became the artist formerly know as Prince. Cr. Hyams should be know as the Major, formerly know as the disgraced sacked councillor of Glen Eira, he always fails to mention that little fact doesn’t he
March 28, 2012 at 8:11 PM
Frank could do no wrong.
March 28, 2012 at 10:01 PM
Frank can be wrong, like everyone else, its the bureaucracy who think they are infallible
March 28, 2012 at 10:11 PM
Frank isn’t wrong on lack of transparency and the lack of information that councillors get and all the secret deals with the mrc. He’s the only one to stand up to all the bully boys and their secret society that’s why this has happened.
March 28, 2012 at 9:11 PM
Kangaroo court is spot on. Even this ombudsman’s report. I’ve just read the whole thing. One paragraph from page 28 is totally unbelievable. Penhalluriack only got the summary report not the full report. But the ombudsman decides that this isn’t “unreasonable”. How on earth are you expected to defend yourself when you’re not given access to the full report? Just because some council paid for lawyers recommended this doesn’t make it right. It’s the old story that they are in the hire of a council and how independent they are. There’s no explanation of why this is seen as “reasonable”. If you’re charged with something then you should be provided with the evidence. Otherwise it sure is a kangaroo court and that’s what’s happened here. O’Neill’s report is taken as gospel and that’s the end of the story. Her version is that Penhalluriack was agressive. Penhalluriack says she was. So how come the ombudsman decided to accept her version rather than Penhalluriack. How rigged is the whole game is a pretty fair question I think.
March 28, 2012 at 9:39 PM
This entire episode should be abhorrent to all people who believe in fair play and justice. What caps it off entirely for me is the unashamed self promotion that figures prominently on council’s home page. This is neither the time nor the place for gratuitous self congratulations (which this is) and self promotion – which it also is.
The comment that these awards are basically meaningless has been made often on this blog. I think they deserve repeating. The award for responsiveness is nothing more than how quickly telephones are answered and not how well problems are resolved to the satisfaction of residents. The annual report award is not for content and the dissemination of meaningful information, but for layout and design. Many of these awards are made to member councils – that is they pay huge subscription fees. This is simply another example of how little substance there is in any claims made by this council and how everything revolves around spin. A far cry from what is the truth and what is real. It is not the basis upon which management can and ever should be judged. What they need to be judged on is what they deliver to the community in terms of transparency, sound governance, and accountability. On that Newton fails dismally in my view as do the vast majority of these councillors.
March 28, 2012 at 10:24 PM
Making a choice on truth versions here is dead easy. Either you believe the weasel words of Lipshutz, Tang and Hyams and the hired henchmen in Burke or you go with Penhalluriack. No contest.
March 28, 2012 at 10:39 PM
Well here we go again – more outrage based on very little information.
I don’t know the details of the application other than it is for a restaurant and café licence but I am familiar with the Elsternwick Club.
The Elsternwick Club has been operating pokies, a bar and restaurant for many years. The restaurant is open Wednesday to Sunday. I am not a club member but have been to the restaurant a few times. It seems to be popular with some local residents. The restaurant doesn’t serve alcohol but patrons can buy alcohol to consume in the restaurant at the adjacent bar. I presume that the licence will allow them to serve alcohol in the restaurant.
If this is the case, little will change and there will be no impact on local residents at all.
If it is more significant than this, I’m happy to be proved wrong.
And by the way, the club doesn’t operate 24 hours a day.
March 28, 2012 at 10:43 PM
sorry – 9. submitted under wrong post. Have resubmitted.
March 28, 2012 at 11:26 PM
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/watchdog-queried-on-free-tickets-20110623-1ghhu.html
http://www.vexnews.com/2009/06/shamed-john-cains-little-mate-george-brouwer-exposed-as-victorias-dodgy-ombudsman/
March 28, 2012 at 11:34 PM
Number 7 – D. Evans – Why don’t you stand for election if you want to see a change. You will be a tops Councillor.
March 29, 2012 at 7:59 AM
I find it interesting that MRC appoint (pay for ) independent consultants to give a report on the racecourse fence which turns out to be favourable to them. Our reaction is ‘what a load of …’. Yet Frank gets independent consultants in that come up with a view that supports his and he convinces councillors and some ratepayers. I could have appointed my own consultants and would have come up with a different opinion. We know what vasilli had to say about the verdict. Has anyone stopped putting mulch in their garden. Surely you should if Frank has found the danger. We have a much bigger danger from keepuing horses in a residential area but nothing will be done about that. Do not think that because I dont respect Frank that I like the gang. I think most of them are all the same looking after there own business interests.
March 29, 2012 at 9:43 AM
You should check your facts. Penhalluriack did not use HIS consultants. They were appointed by officers. He had nothing to do with their choice or what they were told. The FOI application is all about getting access to documents that might show what really went on between the various versions of the final report.
March 29, 2012 at 10:13 AM
I find this really interesting. Every time I make a comment it is says awaiting moderation. By the time it is published there is a Frank supporter up with a response straight away. Very suspicous. Or I could be wrong completely and the general community must have thought it was good this facility was closed down. Not what people have said to me personally Will see if this gets published
March 29, 2012 at 8:08 AM
If bets were taken on who blew the whistle I reckon council officers would be favourite. The Ombudsmans report as always is a political document. He tables it in the Parliament to avoid defamation. If he was so sure of it being 100% accurate he would simply publish.
March 29, 2012 at 12:50 PM
Ombudsman is a pen pusher like Newton. Birds of a feather stick together is a pretty good saying.
March 29, 2012 at 10:22 AM
I’ll give you a hint who took this matter to the Ombudsman.Who in 2004 questioned 3 Councillors phone records when they were overseas?
March 30, 2012 at 8:46 AM
Gotta love that last point in Newton’s post. This post was put up on Tuesday (27/3) and he is advising an opening date of April for GESAC. Note, no day date is mentioned.
I guess even he thought it was over the top to designate April Fools Day (1/4) – although given the way Council is informing everyone of GESAC progress it would be totally appropriate.
Look at how the Glen Eira News (April, 2012) heralds GESAC – specifying a day should not be difficult.
What is the freakin’ problem!!!!
March 30, 2012 at 10:06 AM
Based on a careful reading of the report, the public should be concerned about the role of Ombudsman in investigating people as distinct from government organisations, practices, and legislation. I’d be furious if a report was written as maliciously about me. As for the timing, designed to prejudice a matter before VCAT, one good thing to emerge so far from VCAT is that it criticized the lack of specifics in Council’s case. The Ombudsman makes the same mistakes, and adds several of his own. The overall impression is that the Ombudsman is not a reasonable person, is incapable of critically analysing information, and is prepared to use his incredible coercive powers to assist (MODERATORS: phrase deleted) of a fellow bureaucrat.
Analyzing the report properly would take a similar amount of space to that of the Ombudsman’s, which would be about as tedious as his own report. For the moment I’ll just make the following general comments.
The report is not about conflict of interest, poor governance and bullying at the City of Glen Eira Council. The report makes that claim, but the contents reveal that the report is only concerned with Cr Penhalluriack. No investigation of poor governance or bullying by other members of council or council staff has been done.
Although Worksafe appears in a list of reports done by the Ombudsman, there is no appearance of Worksafe with respect to various accusations made about bullying, harrassment, humiliation. Its almost as if Council is aware that should Worksafe be involved, the behaviour of other individuals, include the Mayor and CEO, would be examined. Maybe they have received legal advice warning them not to involve Worksafe. I have previously pointed out some behaviours that constitute bullying according to examples provided by Worksafe. Incidentally, there is only one piece of evidence in the report concerning harrassment, and the victim was Cr Penhalluriack.
The expression “conflict of interest” is bandied about in the report carelessly. “Conflict of Interest” is defined in Local Government Act, which also places limitations on what is conflict of interest. Both Cr Penhalluriack and the Ombudsman are aware of LGA 77A(4). The Ombudsman sneeringly dismisses it (“irrelevant”), but doesn’t say why. Quite simply, the Ombudsman despite *all* the evidence available to him concerning the mulch heap, doesn’t see it as a health issue. Even the CEO did though, taking some actions to soften the criticism when it emerged that the facility was a health risk and was poorly operated. The CEO, as the driving force for the relocation, is embarrassed about his failure to do due diligence about the site and its operation.
The interpretation of 77A(4) is critical to much that is at stake here–whether a perceived conflict (as defined) can “reasonably be regarded as capable of influencing any actions or decisions of the relevant person in relation to the matter”. The Ombudsman has revealed elsewhere his belief that $20 is sufficient to be capable of influencing an officer. [Unless they’re Musical Viva tickets.] The trouble with being a martinet and expecting others to follow is that it leads to poor governance. Few of us were happy that a Gang of Four (GoF) were given delegated authority for matters as important as C60. It came about because of the interpretation some councillors placed on matters as trivial as having a drink with a member of MRC executive. (MODERATORS: Sentence deleted).
There is a particularly telling section in the report, #151, in which the Ombudsman quotes uncritically a Council resolution to make certain matters public. From the resolution: “and in accordance with the legislation that states that the applicant must be a Councillor or Councillors”. Of course, the legislation doesn’t state that. The legislation very clearly provides 81B(1)(a), meaning Council can apply. It is symptomatic of the carelessness plaguing both investigations and Council’s efforts, in which honesty and integrity have been sacrificed.
The Ombudsman claims repeatedly that council officers have been diverted by Cr Penhalluriack’s behaviour and not focusing on what they should be. He didn’t provide any evidence or justification for saying this, although the lack of structure plans, open space, openness in decision-making does support the view that council and officers haven’t been doing what they should.
The Ombudsman also makes the extraordinary claim, without evidence, that Cr Penhalluriack’s “services on the council have not been of assistance to the good government of the City of Glen Eira”. This is an unforgivable abuse of his powers. Cr Penhalluriack has been prepared to ask questions and to analyze critically Council reports, and at least made a token effort to resist the culture of secrecy that pervades our council. Accountability is so important, it appears multiple times in the Preamble, the very *first* section, of LGA. The Ombudsman has not been elected to his office and is not accountable to the people of Victoria. If he doesn’t like elected representatives then he should advocate shorter terms for Council like we once had.
In several places the Ombudsman refers to carefully selected past incidents in an attempt to use prejudice to strengthen the case against Cr Penhalluriack. The Ombudsman should have known, given his extraordinary coercive powers, of the long history of ill-feeling between the CEO and Cr Penhalluriack, (MODERATORS: phrase deleted). He should also have known of the matter between the CEO and Cr Grossbard previously, of the sacking of Council in 2005, the members of that council who are currently councillors, of the manner in which Andrew contributed to (some may say engineered) the downfall of a previous CEO, of the embarrassing “apology” issued by Cr Esakoff to the CEO concerning the seeking of the reasons why a long list of requested reports had not been published in Council Minutes, the hissy fit he threw in public when Cr Penhalluriack asked his reasonable question. This should have been either stated or acknowledged when attaching weight to the statements he accepted uncritically and the ones he rejected when statements conflicted.
And so it goes. Instead of improving governance in Glen Eira, such as by tackling the excessive use of secrecy, the Ombudsman has chosen to add to the problem. Only he knows why.
March 30, 2012 at 11:25 AM
I only want my mulch back (couldn’t care less about bullying) which was unfarily taken away. What I have learnt from this episode.
1. Penhaulrick is the hero of common man and any discretion can be overlooked. It is the umpire that was wrong.
2. Someone in the council is gloating about this report on the Glen Eira council website saying they were right and he was wrong. Simple solution for mulch just inside the gates to the stables on Neerim Road. After all it is our land. Easy to drive in and noone could complain about detrimental health affects when we have all that horse manure there anyway
March 30, 2012 at 12:36 PM
Reprobate your problem is that you are biased and anonymous. The fact stands that the Ombudsman is independant and probably a Lawyer. His findings are the same as Ms O’Neil.Frank is before the Beak at the moment and he will be able to state his case. He doesn’t need a biased bush lawyer like you.
March 30, 2012 at 12:47 PM
Anonymous, the ombudsman is NOT a lawyer. We must admit to also finding it quite amusing that your attempt to discredit the views of another resident rely on the charge that the individual is ‘biased and anonymous’ – given that you yourself chose to comment anonymously! Does this then also make you ‘biased’ perhaps?
March 30, 2012 at 1:40 PM
Ombudsman’s qualifications –
Master of Laws (ANU)
Bachelor of Laws (Melbourne)
Bachelor of Arts (Hons) (Melbourne)
Graduate of the Ecole Nationale d’Administration (Paris)
Barrister (Non-practising) (Supreme Court, NSW; Supreme Court, ACT; High Court of Australia)
Not a lawyer?
March 30, 2012 at 1:44 PM
Mea culpa! We were wrong and withdraw the statement that the ombudsman is/was not a lawyer. Currently he is very definitely a “bureaucrat”.
March 30, 2012 at 11:38 PM
Anonymous 19 makes an accusation (or are they merely making a claim or allegation?) that I am biased and anonymous. On this occasion I choose to respond.
I am not really anonymous. All my posts are identified with my nick, Reprobate. Those who I trust know who I am. Anonymity does have some advantages, since there are some sick f__ks out there. I’ve had my car tyres slashed, been rung up at 3am to be told my daughters are going to be raped, had objects hurled at my house. This never happened before I got involved in Council politics.
Another advantage of anonymity is that it allows a person to express themselves in ways that they wouldn’t be able to if they were personally identifiable. I doubt councillors would disagree. Look at all the Anonymous posts on this site and state, hand on heart, that none of them are councillors.
The mention of “bias” I suspect was intended pejoratively. My personal philosophy is that bias is innate. It is a reference to all the life experience we bring to a decision and the relative weights we attach to matters. Different people can reach widely varying decisions from the same material because of their backgrounds, education, experience, culture, religion, affluence, or even ethics. “Bias” encapsulates the lot. I don’t expect people to think like me, but if they are to represent me effectively then they need to. It follows that I am not represented in Council, State Government, Federal Government, or anywhere else that decisions affecting me are made.
The ultimate test of representation in a representative democracy is whether the decisions being made are the ones that you would make if you were in the position of the decision-maker, with access to the information they have. It should be clear from my comments that I don’t think decision-makers are making decisions I would make. Rather than simply sitting back and shrugging my shoulders, I make considerable effort to explain what those decisions are and why I wouldn’t have made them. Naturally I don’t expect all decisions to go my way, and fully understand the complex nature of distilling a population of opinions into a final position.
Some things go beyond mere decision-making. They involve higher-level issues around morality and personal philosophy. Even there controversy abounds. Moral dilemmas don’t always have neat resolution. What does help is to have a strong sense of moral principles, a personal philosophy, something that helps to make sense of this chaotic, challenging world. A utilitarian philosophy such as “greatest good for the greatest number” isn’t sufficient, as we recognize how vulnerable minorities and unpopular groups of individuals can be. Marginalized people need effective representation too.
Some years ago, I had a knock on my front door. It was a very distressed neighbour, one who I had never met before. And they asked me for help, having been knocked back by everybody they had asked so far. Life would have been simpler for me if I had chosen not to get involved. Instead I said sure, and threw myself into the daunting task at hand. Its been quite an education. From having never met a councillor in my life, I suddenly actually knew their names. A few returned my phonecalls. I went to meetings, lobbied, read, studied, listened…and commented. Some of the things I discovered didn’t sit well with me. Council was not the happy, functional, respectful place I might once have been led to believe. But that’s politics, as practiced by politicians.
Well I don’t like the way my council plays politics. It offends me, deeply. Its hard to work out whether the practioners have any self-awareness while they engage in their games, work out how to screw each other, make secret deals, spin a dodgy but cosy arrangement, silence dissent. They might even disagree with me that any of this happens. Amazing.
I should add that when I say “council” I mean the entire enchilada, not just councillors. One of the sad facts of council life is that so much of the Local Government Act applies to councillors but not to council officers. The public has never seen a “Code of Conduct” for council officers. Its rumoured to exist though.
I don’t seek a fight, but I’m not running away from one either. I care passionately about principles of good governance, and reject the pathetic imitation offered by the Ombudsman. I described him as a martinet, and its accurate. I said that his principles lead to poor governance, and that’s accurate. Slavish devotion to the letter of the law isn’t what human beings were put on this planet for. I read the legislation and I try to look for the intention, the spirit. But I can be as pedantic as Andrew Newton too, especially in response to pedantry. On that front, if you inspect the Agenda for the special Council meeting next week, it reveals a breach of LGA by Andrew. So what you say? Well alleged breaches of LGA are sufficient for the Ombudsman to recommend pursuing somebody for “gross misconduct”.
With uncanny prescience, a special Council meeting has been called, allegedly to consider the Ombudsman’s report and his recommendations. The statutory 7 days notice has not been given for a spurious reason, since its clear the Mayor could have chosen to give 7 days notice and meet his self-imposed deadline of 12 April. I consider the meeting illegal, but the law is a flexible beast, quite capable of turning a blind eye when it suits.
Council has published an Agenda, again clearly prepared in haste, considering all the typos. In the Agenda is an item unrelated to the Ombudsman’s report, to reinstate the Mulch facility. The usual spin is given, about an “independent consultant” and his “independent professional advice”, all designed to manipulate councillors at an emotional level. The lack of notice I suspect is a deliberate ploy, designed to reduce the opportunity for the community to comment or influence the decision. The closure of the mulch facility in Glenhuntly Park is a personal embarrassment to the CEO and will remain so for as long as it is closed, its silent shell slumbering in peaceful repose next to a children’s playground.
I saw a comment from mrc fan club, who I suspect is not one of my fans, that made a lot of sense to me, being the relocation of the mulch facility to the stables area. Not that I’ll ever find out what is wrong with it, because the requested report has not been delivered by the CEO, which is also to say he has not provided timely advice. The report may never be delivered.
When the facility was closed, several councillors spoke and gave their reasons, citing health and poor location (adjacent to children’s playground). The health risk can be ameliorated although not eliminated if the consultant’s report can be relied upon, but the poor location remains. It will be a test of character for councillors to resist the demands of the two councillors who wanted the facility to remain open in the current location regardless, and insist on the report that has been requested. Some questions should be asked, such as why the item appears in the Agenda at all, and where is the report, and how many of the recommendations have already been implemented.
To return to the original issue of the pursuit of Cr Penhalluriack, the record shows he supports a relocation of the Mulch facility. I didn’t agree with the interpretation that people should declare conflicts of interest over small sums of money. Its a judgement that has to be made, but if people are prepared to spend so many hours being a councillor, reading and analyzing the “reports” thrust upon them through the CEO, then I think the amount of money required to influence a decision is much larger than the Ombudsman does. If the facility is relocated, that undermines any argument about the benefit of closure.
Enough. I’m sick of Council. If that makes me biased, so be it.