ITEM 4.3: Reopening the mulch facility
Penhalluriack declared a conflict of interest as a result of the ombudsman’s report but maintained that he hasn’t a conflict of interest.
Lipshutz moved the motion to reopen and Magee seconded.
LIPSHUTZ: Said that when council first made its decision to close the facility that this was based on ‘mainly’ on Penhalluriack providing councillors ‘with some reports…..mainly Google (based) I understand….(and what council has got is a report made by a government department and professionals, so) ‘appropriate course would be…..reinstate the mulch shed’ (and put into place the recommendations from the consultant. Will provide) ‘safety and certainty for the community’.
MAGEE: Magee said that he’d asked many customers from the sawmill industry about how they ‘confine’ their green and dry waste. The answer that he was told to overcome all problems is a ‘mist spray’….’keeps the dust at bay’ (so stops the inhaling of dust). Was pleased to see that the consultants recommended this and admitted he didn’t notice this when he first read the report ‘so good to see that’s an industry standard’. Stated that the mulch would now be ‘confined within the confines’ of the shed and not allowed to spill out. Said that all the recommendations such as gloves, masks, spray etc. would be installed and that if in 6 months times ‘we’re still having issues’ and the mulch is seeping out, then the shed could be regularly emptied. ‘I’m more than happy with the conditions that are put on it’ and that now with the industry standards applied that ‘they are more than sufficient’.
FORGE: announced that she had an ‘alternative motion’ that stated the item is ‘outside the scope of the notice’ of the agenda and that all councillors be given before the May council meeting ‘all necessary documents relating to the mulch facility’ and that these consist of ‘all test reports conducted by Noel Arnold’ followed by a report from officers on relocating the facility.
PILLING: stated that in May last year there had been a request for a report on alternate sites ‘that hasn’t come to council….I have concerns about the site….next to a chiildren’s playground and a school….I support the request for a report…. I think it’s fair enough that the report comes to council before we vote on it’. Spoke about the arguments put up when there was discussion about Notice of Motion and that councillors should have information and that applies here – ie councillors get the information first and then vote…..’we should follow process’….”I’ll be voting against 4.3″.
TANG: Said it’s important to explain his position. On the original motion back last year he ‘was in opposition’ to the motion to close the facility. Said that he didn’t have concerns about the faility until Penhalluriack raised them. Said he thought that Penhalluriack’s position was ‘unreasonable’ in light of ‘the advice council had received’. These people had ‘put their professional qualifications on the line’ and he felt that with their recommendations the facility should have remained open. ‘My position in that regard hasn’t changed’….(and when councillors resolved to close it that’s why he moved the request for report on other suitable locations) ‘because I felt there was community support for the facility’….’the appropriate safeguards being those recommended to Council’. ‘We didn’t see the results of that report…..(because) of the various priorities Council has had…..I would want to see the outcome of that report…..(facility was good)’ but location was wrong….they should have the opportunity to see alternate sites….this facility can be provided from Glen Huntly Park with appropriate safeguards’. Happy to make a decision after seeing the Officers’ report.
MAGEE then asked Burke that since council has been looking for a site ‘for so long, has council found an alternative site?’
BURKE: ‘No we haven’t….original motion which was to close a free service not a service that was anything else’
MAGEE asked what difference this makes.
BURKE: ‘There is a good deal of confusion. Some people believe there were health issues. The motion was never about health issues. The motion was about closing a free facility’.
MOTION DEFEATED – voting for LIPSHUTZ, LOBO, MAGEE.
AGAINST: TANG, PILLING, FORGE, HYAMS
FORGE: repeated what she said earlier – item be adjourned; 2 weeks before 1st May meeting councillors receive ‘all necessary documents’ about test results and a report on feasability on relocating the facility ‘as previously requested by Council’. THERE WAS NO SECONDER!
LIPSHUTZ came up with another motion that councillors be ‘provided 14 days prior to the Council Meeting’ documents ‘including but not limited to all test results’ from consultants and a report from officers also be provided.
PILLING sought clarification on the reports. Burke answered that there is ‘only one report’ and that he is ‘not assuming that this is an attempt to gain access to documents that would be in confidence’.
LIPSHUTZ then rephrased his motion AND removed the word ALL from ‘test results’. Forge seconded.
LIPSHUTZ: Acknowledged that ‘process is important’. Forge’s original motion was ‘inappropriate because it is within the scope of this Council Meeting’
That’s why he couldn’t support the first part of Forge’s motion. Also said that for the Noel Arnold reports that ‘that’s not in the purview of Council and Council can’t ask for that….(they can look at the report and the) ‘process would be that council would consider the report’ (if there’s another place to relocate then) ‘council would consider that’.
TANG: Said that this is ‘difficult’ because not everyone agrees as to why they ‘knocked back the motion as printed’ (Didn’t support Forge’s motion because he didn’t think) ‘it was outside the scope….it does relate to the finding of the Ombudsman’. Went on to say that it ‘doesn’t matter’ if the driving force was Penhalluriack because ‘at the time we all had to make a decision based on the advice we received’. On test reports ‘I just don’t know what councillors are going to do with it….(councillors aren’t going to put an interpretation on them – that’s the job of Noel Arnold) ‘they need to interpret their test reports and come to a conclusion’….(Councillors can disagree with their report but not to) ‘rewrite the report based on the source material…..that’s outside the scope of the decision making process’. ‘I’m not in favour of reinterpreting the test results’. Said that councillors really want a report on ultimate sites. What’s wrong with Forge’s motion was ‘that there is no guarantee that that will go to the community’ so the resolution needs to ask that it goes to a council meeting. Suggested that this be added to the motion.
FORGE then asked Newton about the notice for the meeting that appeared in The Age. She read out the ‘purpose of the meeting’. ‘It seems to me we’re taking a lot of time to discuss the mulch’ and why this wasn’t included in the notice so that the gallery would know what they were going ‘to listen to’.
NEWTON: Said that the ‘meeting was called by the Mayor, not by me’ and that the ‘business of the meeting was specified by the Mayor’. The CEO ‘does not have the power to determine’ the agenda for Special Council Meetings.
FORGE then asked Hyams the question.
HYAMS: Read out the title of the Ombudsman’s report and said that the report ‘had a number of paragraphs….about the mulch facility. So in discussing this issue we are discussing that report’. Also stated that the agenda item was made available on the Friday so ‘the public would have seen’ what was to be discussed.
HYAMS: Agreed with Lipshutz and Tang that it’s important to get the officers’ report and ‘that’s the way we should be proceeding’. Said he would be voting against the motion because it doesn’t do ‘what councillors intend it to do’.
LIPSHUTZ: Said that the consultant’s report doesn’t mean that ‘councillors can start reinterpreting’. That before councillors make a decision it’s ‘appropriate’ that the officers’ report ‘is in front of us’. Supported Tang that the report comes back to an ordinary council meeting and would accept the amendment.
MOTION PUT – MOTION IS LOST
FAVOUR – FORGE, LIPSHUTZ, LOB0
AGAINST – HYAMS, MAGEE, TANG, PILLING
TANG then moved the motion that a report be provided to ordinary council meeting ‘detailing all findings to the…..feasibility….of alternate mulch facility….within the City of Glen Eira’ and that paragraphs 28-73 of the Ombudsman’s report as well. Lipshutz seconded.
MOTION PUT – carried unanimously.
Glen Eira Debates 
April 5, 2012 at 9:37 PM
Too many lawyers thinking they are in a court room. They are so frightened by process that their judgement is clouded. This has to be the worst Council this city has seen. This not difficult stuff. Tang come across like an over educated under experienced person.
April 5, 2012 at 11:14 PM
This is the most pathetic lot of arguments ever put up by anyone. Either these councillors are totally moronic or they think that residents are that stupid to swallow this rubbish. It’s about time that someone had the guts to put Burke in his place. He’s not there to interpret a damn thing and when he open his trap he should at least be telling the truth. The mulch was closed because of health risk fears – full stop. But everyone just sits there like a stuffed dummy and lets him get away with blue murder. It’s disgusting.
Hyams is no better. You could drive a truck through everything he’s said. The motion was Newton’s little baby and it got shat on. That’s what happened but I’m betting that with the report it’ll eventually get passed once the gang have got time to figure out their tactics.
Last but not least is the pathetic Tang excuse that officers after nearly a whole damn year had other priorities and couldn’t get a report together. Yeah, they were all too busy trying to screw Penhalluriack. The shed’s still standing there and there’s been no report because that’s what Newton has wanted – to leave the mulch at Glen Huntly. That would be his little “victory” after being shown up by Penhalluriack for lousy risk management. Recommendations are only been done now so for 2 years people weren’t covered. I don’t see any councillor with enough brains or guts making this point! Get rid of the whole pack of them and Newton and Burke.
April 5, 2012 at 11:43 PM
Anonymous 9 – Are you and your cronies going to take over the council?
April 6, 2012 at 10:56 AM
What I take from all this is that two years ago, when the mulch issue first arose, Councillors (rather than doing any research of their own or asking questions or calling for a report) took the path of least resistance. Two years later, they have a report (which no one other than them has seen even though it should have appeared in the agenda) and the only variation to their past actions (still no research or questioning) is criticism of the earlier presented documentation which wasn’t questioned when presented.
Seems to me that the only Cr. that got off his A and did something is being “got at” despite the fact the “new” report (which recommends adoption of health and safety precautions) supports his decision to act two years ago. Instead of going after Pennhalluriack, Crs should be thanking him.
As for Paul Burke’s comments – it is outrageous to learn that no Cr. challenged him. His comment is totally wrong. Two years ago the discussion was about health and safety risks associated with mulch – “free service” was never mentioned.
Every Councillor and Administrator is tarnished by this whole mess. They need to focus on doing their jobs and serving the community. Enough time and dollars have been wasted on internal squabbles.
April 6, 2012 at 11:09 AM
Council’s statement of purpose, which appears on the front of every agenda, is as follows:
“Council works with and for the Community
. to provide quality facilities, services, safeguards and supports
. beyond the capacity of individuals but achievable when working together
. according to overall community values, needs and priorities
. in a caring accountable and professional manner
. that prides value for money
. for present and future generations”
I am having real trouble aligning these lofty goals with the above outline of events/statements.
It’s time both Crs. and the Admin read and acted in accordance with their statement of purpose.
April 6, 2012 at 11:12 AM
Forge should be congratulated on at least challenging the manipulation that goes on in Glen Eira. Newton’s reply that he isn’t the creator of the agenda is typical Newton with his carefully phrased language that sails close to the wind. The Local Law has this clause in it: “Notice papers for special meetings of Council called under section 84(1) of the Local Government Act 1989 must be prepared by the person/s calling the meeting. The agenda must be prepared by the Chief Executive Officer or his / her delegate, in consultation with the person/s calling the meeting”. I’d bet my life that the inclusion of the mulch bit was the entire brain child of Newton and that like the good little lackey he is Hyams signed on the bottom line without question. Left holding the bag thanks to Newton, Hyams then has to defend the indefensible so we get the sheer nonsense that because there are paragraphs in the ombudsman’s report about the mulch heap that this provides the necessary justification to have an agenda item demanding closure of the facility. What a peice of tripe! The ombudsman’s report also contained paragraphs about rebel trading. Maybe the agenda should have included a motion to return to the 6 days a week trading laws?
This whole item and the arguments presented by some councillors are a clear indictment on their integrity if not their stupidity. They do themselves and the municipality no favours for what is their obvious complicity in the personal battles of Newton. Councillors should represent their community and not be willing lackeys to the Newtons and Burkes of this world.
April 6, 2012 at 12:24 PM
Mr Burke is 100% correct. Read the Ombudsman’s Report. This is all about closing a free community service forcing Ratepayers to purchase Mulch retail. And who is the closest retailer ?. Not Paul Burke. And who initiated all this and lined his pockets? Not Paul Burke. And who is before the Member at VCAT possibly facing his removal from Council.? Not Paul Burke. Free relates to non payment and all of this relates to Conflict of Interest.Your mate has breached the Law in the opinion of the Ombudsman, not Paul Burke Mr Burke is guilty of simply telling it how it is.
April 6, 2012 at 12:53 PM
Noely poly, how about putting your brain into gear for a change and stop thinking that the sun shines out of you know whos backside? Burke’s job is to sit there and keep his mouth shut unless he is specifically asked for “advice”. Full bloody stop! He’s not there to editorialise and refashion history to serve his and Newton’s grubby little games. Not the first time that he’s stuck his beak in. Very clever cos it gives the other idiots such as Tang Lipshutz and Hyams the opening to blab on about nothing. Now get this straight. 7 councillors voted to close the damn place. The arguments were all about safety not about “free mulch”. That’s why the vote went the way it did. Have you finally got it?
April 6, 2012 at 5:16 PM
Noel, why don’t you ring Frank up and tell him that he is bad person. You were one of the sacked councillors. That will take a bit of beating. Frank will be standing at the next election. You had his sign in your shop helping him to get re-elected. Will you help him this time?
April 6, 2012 at 2:00 PM
Two confessions here that are pretty important and other people have alluded to already. I think they’re worth focusing on though.
1. A council resolution asking for a report on other possible locations hasn’t been done. 10 months have gone past and Newton hasn’t delivered on this request. That means that he hasn’t done what he’s supposed to do – provide “timely advice” to council and make sure that all resolutions are acted upon promptly. The argument that they haven’t found another location is irrelevant. A report stating that they haven’t located one should have been done or one stating that they’re still looking. Not one person really concentrated on this and Tang has the gall to excuse them because there are other “priorities”. I’m sorry, but that’s not what a decent councillor should be doing. They should be screaming the place down and asking repeatedly where’s the report and why does it take 10 months and still no answer.
2. It’s truly amazing that we’ve now got the situation where amendments are moved that ask for reports to come back to full council meetings. Again this is to cover up for Newton and his imposed secrecy. Every single request for a report should come back to council – not just those that are politically inconsequential. Either you have good governance or you don’t. This is an example of woeful governance and again Tang’s attempts to exonerate himself and the gang.
3. Other people have already said that if the facility is now going to have mist sprays, gloves and all the other recommendations that were made by Noel Arnold, then that admits that these things haven’t been there before. The facility has been there working for 2 years without these safety precautions. Two years that have left workers and others fully exposed to whatever risks are at the back of the mulch that was never turned and never sprayed. It would be good to know if any worker is or already has contemplated suing this council for not providing a safe workplace and putting their health at risk. Again, not one single councillor talks about this because it puts Newton under the hammer. He is respoonsible and he’s failed in his primary duty to safeguard employees and the public.
April 6, 2012 at 5:36 PM
Smart Aleck your deep hatred for Paul Burke, to me indicates a possible mental disorder.Surely even you will admit that the former Mulch Facility was a free service that was closed following the initiation of this entire matter by a Councillor who has been found to have a Conflict of Interest in the matter, by the Ombudsman. This is the issue, not Burke, Newton or any other matter . You turn everything into a side show to divert from the main issue.Macca where do you suggest the Facility be moved to. The answer in such a heavily populated city devoid of open space is nowhere.Council when it originally moved the facility from Caulfield Park ( before health claims) did such a report and decided on Glenhuntly. Further the Council Agenda is not the place for minor matters.Before Frank, I bet half the Councillors didn’t even know there was a mulch service.
April 6, 2012 at 10:58 PM
Noel, I extend to you my most heartfelt sympathy for what is clearly your inability to comprehend the uttermost, basic facts that even a two year old could grasp completely. Penhalluriack did not initiate anything – residents’ concerned about their kids and the risks did. The ombudsman says ‘might’ and ‘perhaps’ about conflict of interest – anyway his report is a dud and will be shown to be one pretty soon. As for Burke, well I doubt that he would win any popularity contest even amongst councillors, only with ex councillors like you perhaps. YOu make for a great double!
April 6, 2012 at 11:22 PM
Having attended a few Council meetings and spoken with most Councillors I have an inkling of the manipulative skills of the administration.
When Newton spoke of not having the authority to set the agenda for special Council meetings, I flagged the use of the term “special”.
Could someone please advise who has the authority to set the agenda for “ordinary” Council meetings? I have always assumed its Councillors but I am beginning to wonder.
April 6, 2012 at 11:36 PM
In its wisdom councillors inserted clause 224(1) into the Local Law Meeting Procedures. It states: “Other than for special meetings of Council called under section 84(1) of the Local Government Act 1989, the notice papers and agenda for all meetings of the Council shall be prepared by the Chief Executive Officer or his/her delegate”. Control (and full power) has thus been handed over to administrators. Without a Notice of Motion, and with the “no surprises” policy, Glen Eira councillors have effectively gagged themselves.
April 6, 2012 at 11:59 PM
Thanks for the info – there is much to ponder here.
Rather than put things into the planning scheme, Council has opted to refer to subsiduary/referenced “Guidelines” on the basis that they are easier to change. Easier to change outweighs the fact that “guidelines” are only that and do not have the same weight that they would have if they were included in the planning scheme.
That setting the agenda items has been assigned to the CEO via local law (very hard to change we are told) raises serious issues related to governance and the current Crs ability to discern and act in the community’s interests..
As I said much to ponder
April 7, 2012 at 12:54 PM
GLENHUNTLY PARK APPEARS TO BE A PLACE FOR YOUNG CHILDREN ESPECIALLY TODDLERS WITH UNGATED FENCES WITHIN A METRE OF NEERIM ROAD WHICH HAS MANY CARS TURNING BLINDLY WITHIN TEN METRES OF ONE GATEWAY AND THE OTHER UNTIL COUNCIL BECAME CLEVER WAS ONLY THE WIDTH OF THE FENCE AWAY FROM THE DANGER OF A VEHICLE ENTERING THE MULCH FACILITY AREA. This seems to be an accident (perhaps even death waiting to happen)
I have no children who attend the Glen Eira College or horses who live on our parkland area of Aquanita Lodge or stables of Lord Lodge but it would seem that the mulch fumes may effect them.
Looking at a broader picture the mayors of our council have been noted as stating that there should be no concern for all the cars towing trailers, trucks towing chipping machines as they are not any danger and that council trucks reversing to exit in the area near the toddler playground (when a forward gear could have been selected) is according to council policy because it obeyed the state government road rules, gates are not required on the Glenhuntly Park because children should be under the control of their parents and guardians yet the mulch comings and goings were within .1 of a metre from the opening of the fence from the toddler area.
And in contrast to this according to another answer to a public question in the letter regarding the gateways and fencing in Station Street a mayor said that these were needed enable punters (and they would be adult sized people) to enter their taxis with safety.
These facts are all from answers by Mayors in “Answers to Public Questions”
ONE ASKS WHO IS BEING CARED FOR BEST??????/
April 8, 2012 at 12:25 AM
Why does the author of this blog never crticises Cr. Forge and Cr. Penhalluriak? Is friendship making RM take sides for resons best known?
April 8, 2012 at 11:32 AM
spot on. Frank’s indiscretions are overlooked because he is the peoples champion. Other people see him as just looking after his own interests like the rest of them.
April 8, 2012 at 10:11 AM
So who or what is “Council”? The term gets bandied about by the Ombudsman and officers with reckless abandon, with widely different meanings.
My criticisms of Council (whatever that is) include the failure to publish relevant material regarding the mulch facility; the wilful misrepresentation of what the Noel Arnold report actually says; the tolerance by Council of council officers manipulating information in an effort to secure the decision they want; the failure to recount accurately the Resolution made by Council concerning the mulch facility; the preparedness of councillors to disregard the failure of the CEO to provide timely advice or to implement decisions of Council without undue delay; the non-publication of a Code of Conduct for council staff; the lack of objectivity in assessing sites for a mulch facility; their obsessive use of secrecy; and their general rejection of all of the principles contained in their Councillor Code of Conduct.
The mulch facility can stay or go–once the relevant information has been collected, made public, and analyzed. That includes quantifying risk before and after proposed mitigations. Any attempt to suppress relevant information, whether through selective filtering, chicanery, or abuse of FOI, should be condemned loudly by the public, and those responsible be held to account.
April 8, 2012 at 11:18 AM
Lipshutz must be fair dinkum living under a rock as he has claimed about a resident if he doesn’t know that google links to all forms of sources and information including government websites and scientific thinktanks.
April 8, 2012 at 11:59 AM
Anon 10.58 what about discussing the topic instead of insulting people.