One of the items on the agenda for next Tuesday night’s hastily called Special Council Meeting contains the ‘recommendation’ that the Glen Huntly Rd mulch facility be re-opened AT GLEN HUNTLY. Under the pretext that this meeting is called to deal with the Ombudsman’s ‘recommendations’ Newton and his supporters have snuck this item into the agenda. Readers need to be fully aware that:
- The ombudsman never recommended the reopening of the facility
- The ombudsman also never commented on the potential health risks
Nothing but nothing in the ombudsman’s report has anything to do with the Peter Jones’ (under orders?) recommendation.
Further, the consultant’s scientific report is currently the subject of an FOI application. Council has refused to release documents that could have a direct bearing on any decision regarding the facility. Yet, here is the officers’ recommendation urging a re-opening. What if the VCAT member determines that the documents be released and the information reveals undue interference by officers? What if the health risks have somehow been downgraded? We already know that not all of the recommendations made it into the final version of the report. So given all these ‘unknowns’ and their possible ramifications for any decision making, why is this item in the agenda?
Tuesday night will therefore be the ‘acid test’ for councillors. Will they cave in and reopen the facility in exactly the same place? Will we witness another example of hypocrisy and the further erosion of public trust in anything that some councillors state?
We should remember that:
- In May 2011 Tang’s Request for a Report on alternate sites and relocation of the mulch facility was passed by Council. It has yet to make an appearance. This resolution still stands, yet there is no recommendation to ‘rescind’ such a motion and replace it with the current one.
- When councillors voted on the above many of their arguments were that they felt that the current location was clearly inappropriate given its proximity to a playground and a school – not to mention a public park. In fact our notes and the post we made at the time report that Pilling stated that the placement is wrong ‘wedged between a playground and a secondary school….I think it should be moved’. Esakoff also said that ‘given its location near a playground caution is warranted’. Nothing has changed. The facility is still there – contrary to the initial motion that it be removed. So much for council’s resolution and the legal requirement for the CEO to action all resolutions in a ‘timely’ fashion!
- Even the mover of the request (Tang) stated that if his motion for the report was defeated he ‘would let the issue lie’ – ie maintain the closure of the facility.
The acid test is definitely on councillors who voted for closure. They now have the opportunity to stand by their original words and decision. It is time that they put a stop to the continual manipulation that is endemic in Glen Eira and stood up for what is ethical, transparent, and represents good governance.
At the heart of this entire issue is the simple fact that the mulch facility should never have been placed at Glen Huntly. This decision was made by officers and we presume senior administrators. The campaign against Penhalluriack is, in our view, directly attributable to the fact that in response to resident concerns, he has dared to question and therefore highlight the potential failure of risk management at this council and faulty decision making. For this temerity he must be punished and tens of thousands of ratepayers’ funds expended on this inquisition.
This Special Council Meeting, called with such indecent haste, should be seen for what it is and questions asked as to why this particular recommendation is included since it has absolutely nothing to do with the Ombudsman’s Report. It’s definitely time that the games that Newton plays be exposed and challenged. That’s the acid test. Which of these councillors can pass the test?
Glen Eira Debates 
March 30, 2012 at 11:42 PM
Leaving aside the conflict of interest matter, I think it is somewhat foolhardy for councillors to be making any decision on the future of the facility without waiting to see what vcat decides. Even then I think that all councillors should demand to have all documents so that they have the complete information at their fingertips. It’s plain stupid to reopen and then find out that there are other problems that councillors weren’t told about. It’s been closed for a year already so I don’t see what the problem is in waiting another 6 or 8 weeks. I also agree with the post that under these circumstances the motion doesn’t belong here and that it’s nothing more than rubbing Penhalluriack’s nose in the dirt a little more and a little tad of electioneering for the likes of Lipshutz and Hyams and Tang. People should know exactly what went on and councillors should be the first people to demand all this. If they don’t then they’ve wimped it again and made it clear to the whole world who is really running the show.
March 30, 2012 at 11:59 PM
This comment by Reprobate has just gone up on an earlier post. We’re reproducing it here since it also bears directly on our most recent post –
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.
March 31, 2012 at 1:38 AM
I’d like to compliment Reprobate on his articulate and eloquent comment and state that I fully support his sentiments. Councils are not meant to be hot beds of deceit if not corruption, nor petty and blind vindictiveness. When councillors allow this to happen they are not worthy of representing anyone. There is much to dislike in the way that this particular council functions. It is the antithesis of all the values it espouses.
March 31, 2012 at 9:06 AM
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 31, 2012 at 11:09 AM
Couple of things stick out like sore thumbs in the agenda. When it suits, Newton publishes personal letters. We don’t get the full correspondence though – only what helps support his dodgy accusations. Funny that when residents ask for stuff it’s always “confidential” or when a councillor asks for further information it becomes a “working document” and is not given. Selective editing I’d say. Real easy then. Spend all your time collecting stuff and sifting through it and then when the time is right you release just those few bits and pieces that make you look like an angel. Biggest joke is the ombudsman claiming that Penhalluriack was the cause for oouncil not concentrating on its important business of serving the community. I’d say that council can’t concentrate on the important business of serving the community when all it’s energies are devoted to this type of carefully planned assassination.
March 31, 2012 at 2:26 PM
Noticed some more selective planting of stuff. Newton’s put in the dates of the special committee for his reappointment. No comments just the dates of all these meetings. The ombudsman’s report apart from the odd sentence didn’t see this “undue influence” in connection with Newton’s reappointment. The municipal inspector in the last investigation also cleared everyone. That would include Penhalluriack you’ve got to assume. But Newton being Newton, there it is smack in the middle of the agenda and not related by one iota to anything the ombudsman has recommended. You’ve got to start believing that Newton’s middle name could be Richard and his nickname “tricky dicky”.
March 31, 2012 at 11:54 AM
The whole mulch thing is a storm in a teacup. Born of a local who didn’t like the so-called smell and an over zealous Councillor. There are mulch areas in a truckload of municipalities where councillors don’t over react to unscientific scuttlebutt.
March 31, 2012 at 2:15 PM
Mulch facilities are always placed in depots where traffic can be managed and health risks quarantined. Name me one mulch facility placed on a kids playground next up the BBQs. FFS is this Council dumb or what.
March 31, 2012 at 4:29 PM
Bayside often leave there’s in public parks where anyone can take it away as we did for sometime.
Show me the bona fide scientific data that states mulch is injurious to health. To suggest it is is flat earth stuff.
Come down from the hill and mix in the real world. 😛
March 31, 2012 at 7:57 PM
Thanks a lot smartass. Throwing some mulch in a park is one thing but when you are talking tractors, front ends and bob cats, these are for depots. Get out more and see how the real municipalities are dealing with mulch. Then there is Glen Eira…..
April 1, 2012 at 10:32 AM
why was this the word smart*** printed. this is offensive. At least Autonomy is speaking with some intelligence
April 1, 2012 at 4:25 PM
Thanks MRC. When you’re posting rubbish and can’t support your case with any authorative data you resort to abuse. If I wasn’t so nice I’d say the poster should change her username to “Dill from the Hill”. 😉
March 31, 2012 at 3:44 PM
Since the mulch facility is back on the agenda, literally, along with the behaviour of both Cr Penhalluriack and Andrew Newton, I noticed the following courtesy of the Ombudsman.
45. Council officers placed a sign stating the following outside the facility:
At a Council Meeting on 5th April Council resolved to close this
facility and no longer provide this free service.’
What Council actually resolved is contained in the Minutes of the meeting of 5 April 2011: “That Council removes its facility in Glen Huntly Park and no longer provides this free service.”
I’m sure Andrew will appreciate my point, because he is a stickler for the rules, and the Ombudsman supports him in this. Under LGA 94A(1)(b) “A Council’s Chief Executive Officer is responsible for ensuring that the decisions of the Council are implemented without undue delay”. Yet the facility is still there in the park almost a year later. Wonder why? Its dubious whether the author of the sign has fulfilled their obligations under S95 Conduct Principles either.
April 1, 2012 at 9:07 AM
Seems to me that scientific reports on the risks associated with mulch are much like those on climate change – you can find one to support your particular view.
In the absence of a definitive opinion look to the warnings on packaged mulch. If it’s on packaged mulch, doesn’t it stand that similar warnings apply to bulk mulch. It would be prudent to err on the side the caution – which is exactly the same argument put by Council when it voted 7 to 2 to close the current mulch facility and look for alternative locations.
Now we have a special Council Meeting to vote on the alleged behaviour of Penhalluriack (I am not a Frank supporter. However, I am dismayed at the deficiencies in the Ombudsman’s report and what it means for all Victorians who seek independent, analytical legal assessment in cases where they believe they have been adversely impacted). And the mulch facility is chucked into this special meeting – why? Newton gloating?
It is inappropriate for mulch to added to this special meeting.
April 1, 2012 at 2:15 PM
It is appropriate to re-open the Mulch saga because the Councillor who drove the issue, and virtually forced fellow Councillors to close the facility acted illegally , with their financial interest in mind.That Councillor can be removed from Office for his failings.I also have read the 45 page Ombudsmans report and it doesn’t have 1 unfavourable comment against staff, but it has 45 pages analysing the disgusting behavior of 1 Councillor who is a disgrace and should save the City a pile of money by resigning before they are sacked.
April 2, 2012 at 7:30 AM
Agree with you 100% Autonomy. Withouth this person the mulch facility would still be opened and he gained financially. He has found to be a bully on issues so it must be asked how did he convince the other councillors to vote with him. I cant see how the other councillors can change their mind now. Very funny if Frank even opens his mouth in this debate!
April 1, 2012 at 2:40 PM
Any councillor who voted for the closure of the mulch facility, then votes for it’s re-opening at the Tuesday meeting will will have some serious explaining to do. Should be worth hearing.
April 1, 2012 at 10:38 PM
There were many letters sent to mayors regarding the contaminated air of the mullch facility and cars towing trailers, trucks towing chipping machines all on the path within a fraction of a metre on the path of escaping toddlers from the toddlers’ area. One of the mayors even stated that all parentss and guardians are responsible for the safety ot their childrn in the park and that gates were unnecessary. Another councillor in the debate stated that all timber workers developed asthma from the saps of trees between the bark and the trunk. A teacher was rendered unable to ever work again after teaching in damp conditions according to the Education Trade Union Newspaper
One of the mayors even stated that all council trucks “obey the road rules in parks” after it was pointed out that a council employee actually drove into this area unbecessarily and exited by reversing when he could have exited by driving forwards.
Funny isn’t it when one drives across a school play ground, WWHERE THE CHILDREN ARE TALLER AND MAYBE EVEN BY A MOTORIST, one is obliged to have a person walk the path in front of the vehicle traversing the playground. The children from that part of Glen Eira apparently do not matter now they live in the crowded conditions of the Neerim road/Manchester Road flats … the site of the dormer depot where the trucks tractors tree lopping machinery and trailers as well as the mulch heap should all be stored,,, but oh we made millions by selling this land to developers and now the poor people live in the whiff of the stables which are incidentally erected temoriarily (ablout 20 years now) on a few other acres of our racecourse park.
April 1, 2012 at 11:07 PM
Just suppose you’re in the position of a councillor and have to consider the mulch heap again. How should you proceed?
Well firstly, you should be well aware of your obligations, under LGA, under Councillor Code of Conduct, under Local Law, and anything else applicable.
Next you should be diligent, read *and understand* the reports and related material. If the necessary advice has not been provided or is inadequate, then you’re not in a position to make an informed decision. The appropriate course in those circumstances is to adopt a “fail-safe” policy (a fundamental principle of railway safeworking, where safety is critical). Be critical of vague or unsubstantiated claims, and pay special attention to where information has been filtered, or presented selectively to align with the views of a particular group.
And finally, whatever the decision is, be accountable for it. Explain the process by you reached your decision, the evidence you relied upon, the weight you attached to different pieces of evidence. Be honest, demonstrate integrity, ignore irrelevances, show transparency, meet your obligations. If you find yourself relying on suppressing information, quoting selectively, dissembling, getting uncomfortable when asked to explain something, you know you’ve failed. Read the Councillor Code of Conduct again, and use it as a checklist.
So far, our councillors have ballsed up the mulch heap saga at every step of the way, and they’ve not been helped by the CEO. BTW the Ombudsman’s report is an irrelevance to consideration of the mulch heap. It was irrelevant a year ago and its irrelevant today. Under Council’s General Conduct Obligation of Fairness and Equity, councillors “must not take irrelevant matters or circumstances into consideration when making decisions”. I’ve seen people here urging councillors to breach their Code of Conduct, which is about as ironic as things can possibly get. As it happens, they *have* breached their Code, repeatedly, and ignored the breaches (mostly), but the rot *has to stop*. All of them, including the CEO, have failed us.
The author of the report “Health Risk Assessment Mulch Storage Centre” seems to have taken considerable trouble with his report, to be honest, diligent, fair, balanced, and I commend him for it. Maybe he has had past trouble with his reports getting misused, and includes in his report in the Statement of Limitations, “This report shall only be presented in full and may not be used to support any other objective than those set out in the report…”.
A couple of difficulties with the report remain though. There’s the fact that changes were made after an interested party was privvy to the first draft; that the report reveals a number of relevant tests were not performed; and that it ultimately fails to quantify anything. The nature of risks were identified (and there were quite a few) but not their magnitude. The Recommendations that appear in the report were to mitigate risk, but not to eliminate them. The degree to which risks would be mitigated by adopting the recommendations were not quantified.
Council did not want the public to read the report. The report is not in any Council Minutes. Its not in the Minutes for the upcoming Special Meeting. What happened a year ago is that the Audit committee, without authority, decided to do nothing, and when the matter of the mulch heap appeared in Council, only selected quotes were provided. Other dodgy stuff happened with the quality of information disseminated.
Based on the information that was provided, which may or may not be tainted, Council resolved to remove the facility from Glenhuntly Park in a vote that was split 7-2. Its been controversial ever since.
On Cr Pilling’s blog, a bunch of comments were posted, most of them critical. To his credit, he outlined his position, why he voted as he did, responded to each question. On 4 May 2011 he wrote “no suitable sites could be identified to relocate the service/facilty – I certainly made enquiries on this-“. Since then, there has been a formal request for a report on alternative sites, and that report has not been sighted. A curious person may well wonder that if there are no suitable sites in the municipality, as per council officers, why the facility should remain open or be reopened in its current location. Such a decision would then be yet another breach of the Code of Conduct.
Cr Penhalluriack made an FOI application for the original draft report from the consultant. “Council” (because its no longer clear who or what “Council” is given all the shonky stuff that has been happening) refused the application and the matter has gone to VCAT. Council has fought the application vigorously, using multiple very senior counsel, invoking the usual mantra–“internal working document”, “not in the public interest”. Why public safety is not in the public interest is a mystery.
It should be clear by now, at least if you’re familiar with the obligations of councillors and the CEO, that every publicly visible aspect of the matter has been f__ked up, and no sign that anybody in a position of responsibility cares about the multiple breaches of the Code of Conduct made by *all* councillors, or the failure of the Audit Committee to provide advice, or the CEO to provide advice in a manner consistent with his own obligations.
I have my own ideas about how to clean up this mess, and they don’t involve the resolution in the Agenda prepared by Mayor Hyams and CEO or his/her delegate. I toyed with the idea of drafting my own resolution but have run out of energy for the moment. The matter might not even be considered at the Special Meeting for legal reasons. Even the organisation of the Special Meeting, with less than 7 days notice, highlights the problems we have with governance. For light relief, I’m now going to watch “Rats In The Ranks”.
April 1, 2012 at 11:32 PM
To jog readers’ memory it’s worthwhile reiterating the following points:
1. Councillors do NOT HAVE TO GIVE NOTICE WHEN ASKING OFFICERS QUESTIONS. Newton’s continual phrase ‘without notice’ is deliberately used to cast aspersions on Penhalluriack.
2. Newton’s claim that no councillor raised any objections at the Audit Committee meeting is again a total furphy. The Audit committee had already stated that Council was the appropriate place to raise any concerns. Secondly, Penhalluriack HAD ALREADY RAISED HIS CONCERNS WITH OFFICERS on several prior occasions. They had obviously fallen on deaf ears. There was absolutely no point in raising them again.
3. Newton’s ‘expert advice’ from the Health Department has never been sighted. It comes from the Legionella section whose focus is on water cooling systems – not the general environment. The Health Department itself has published booklets, brochures and on its website contains warnings about mulch, woodchips and NOT ONLY LEGIONELLA, but other health risks associated with these materials – especially via air borne particles.
4. The consultant’s report did not test the back of the mulch heap itself. Hence one has every right to query the appropriateness, if not thoroughness of the prescribed testing.
5. None of this explains why the damn thing was placed where it was in the first instance. What risk management strategies did Newton employ when for over two years workers and those using the facility were obviously ‘at risk’ if even this consultant’s report made recommendations as to mitigating such risks? That means that for at least 2 years Newton failed to get his act together and workers were exposed to potentially dangerous materials. The photographs taken by Penhalluriack (and “accidentally” omitted in the agenda items) clearly show dust particles floating all around a worker’s loader.
6. Why is Newton fighting tooth and nail to avoid publishing all documentation on this issue? What has he got to hide is the logical conclusion?
7. Why is Penhalluriack singled out when 7 councillors voted for closure?
8. WHY IS SO MUCH THAT GOES ON IN THIS COUNCIL SECRET?
Once all of these questions are fully answered, then we will be much, much closer to the truth.
April 2, 2012 at 11:56 AM
Free the mulch are very happy that the umpire (Ombudsman ) has spoken.
Unlike this glen Eira blog that is still unable to provide a independent opinion on this matter …
April 2, 2012 at 1:01 PM
have to agree there free the mulch. Most of these comments could have been written by Penhaulrick!
April 2, 2012 at 4:20 PM
At least help Council out and publish your list of suitable sites within the municipality, along with the objective criteria you used to determine the sites are suitable.
April 3, 2012 at 7:37 AM
well I have kids and would have absolutely no hesitiation in them playing in the playground next to the mulch shed. Frank said he did research on the internet. For heavens sake you can prove any theory that way. However if you want the perfect site. Just put inside the gate of the stables on Neerim Road. It ticks all the boxes. Firstly it is not there land. Secondly it has plenty of room for cars and trucks as they are entering at the moment with horses. Thirdly if the people say there is a health risk then it is no worse that all the horse faeces and chemicals being used there. The area inside the gate is just overgrown with weeds and a derelict shed and would not take much effort to plop the shed there. It might actually fit in well with a good use for the stables if the MRC decides to give it back. This should be set up as a community garden where people in an area of growing population can grow their own fruit and vegies.