The ‘Executive Summary’ of the O’Neill report comprises 8 pages involving 6 allegations. She concludes with 7 recommendations. The report is dated 20th June 2011. This is the first of our posts on this issue.
The following points should be carefully noted:
- Newton’s allegations were never put into writing – they remain ‘unofficial’. There has never been a formal ‘written complaint’
- Penhalluriack (and allegedly Newton) have only received this summary report – not the full report itself.
- Who has read the full report?
- O’Neill wrote the allegations herself based on the documents (and ‘discussions’?) provided to her by Newton
- O’Neill interviewed: Lipshutz, Esakoff, Tang, Swabey, Wait, Donna Graham (Legal Counsel for council), Hyams, Magee, Pilling, Lobo, Forge. Penhalluriack asked that 6 residents be interviewed. O’Neill only interviewed 2 residents claiming that 4 were not ‘relevant’ to the investigation.
- O’Neill NEVER concluded that Penhalluriack was a ‘bully’ in this report. Her strongest claim was that there were instances of “inappropriate behaviour”.
The following opening extracts are cited verbatim:
“In accordance with the terms of the Glen Eira Bullying Policy, the complainant, being the CEO and the person accused of bullying, being Councillor Penhalluriack should be provided with this Executive Summary. This should be raised at the earliest possible opportunity with Councillors to ensure that both the CEO and Cr Penhalluriack are given an opportunity to respond in accordance with your Policies and Procedures. This is particularly the case as Cr Penhalluriack is about to go on leave this week.
1.1 You have instructed me via Peter Jones, the responsible Officer, that the CEO, Andrew Newton (“CEO”) has raised a number of OHS concerns that he has with respect to the provision of a safe system of work. No official written complaint has been made by the CEO.
1.2 As there was no written complaint in this matter, I met with the CEO to ascertain what his OHS concerns were. Following my meetings with the CEO, I drafted a Table of Allegations which was approved by the CEO
1.3 Cr Penhalluriack has been given every possible opportunity to respond to the allegations. Ultimately, Cr Penhalluriack chose not to meet with me to allow me to put the allegations to him. Instead he provided me with a written submission. It should be noted that in some cases these written submission to me do not address the allegation, but instead he responds to each of the incidences that are referred to in the allegations. By declining to meet with me and let me go through the submissions with him, I have been unable to provide him with information provided by other witnesses so that he could respond to those matters or discuss with him in more detail the issues.”
COMMENTS
We find this whole process extraordinary for the following reasons:
- No attempt at mediation as a first port of call as recommended by Worksafe and Council policy.
- Nothing in writing from Newton – just the handing over of a (selective?) bunch of documents
- As the official ‘author’ of the subsequent allegations, O’Neill becomes both ‘accuser’ and ‘judge’ – a process that is highly suspect professionally and legally.
- Why Newton’s reluctance to put anything down on paper? Another ploy to ensure that his hands are clean?
- O’Neill’s logic is incomprehensible – ie. conclusions of guilt surely are made on the bases of the ‘incidents’ recorded and their overall credibility. Penhalluriack is criticised for challenging these ‘incidents’ head on. Yet what else is he supposed to do – especially if such ‘incidents’ demand debunking? Common sense tells us that if the ‘incidents’ are spurious and would never hold up in a court of law, then conclusions as to ‘inappropriate behaviour’ or ‘bullying’ are highly suspect. Understanding this basic principle appears to have been beyond O’Neill. The question then arises as to what weighting O’Neill gave to Penhalluriack’s submission.
- Finally, we’ve learnt that this ostensible ‘objective’ Executive Summary does not contain one single word that emanated from the interviewed residents. Were their comments irrelevant, or perhaps, deliberately overlooked?
Glen Eira Debates 
April 22, 2012 at 10:43 PM
Penhalluriack’s claims of a “kangaroo court” are borne out by these paragraphs. It’s mind boggling that a so called objective investigator should be the person writing the allegations and then the investigator of these claims. This makes questions of conflict of interest central here. I’d go even further and ask who recommended O’Neill. If she was suggested or recommended by officers then there’s another huge conflict of interest on their part.
For me what’s most important is that we’ve been told that up to this stage $65,000 has been spent on legal advice about Penhalluriack without any attempt to resolve the differences between Newton and Penhalluriack via mediation. Residents should be outraged at this and if Penhalluriack is right and Newton refused mediation, then all residents should know where to lay the blame for this gross abuse of public funds. I also include all those councillors who voted for this to proceed before any attempt at mediation. Even if mediation failed, it still should have been tried right at the beginning. Now we’re in a mess that will surely amount to huge lawyer bills.
April 22, 2012 at 11:13 PM
There’s some very weird stuff here in the last couple of sentences of the O’Neill statements. Sounds like the witnesses made statements that Penhalluriack didn’t know about and therefore it should have been O’Neill’s duty to provide him with the substance of what they said so that he could answer them any way he liked. There’s no law that I know of about putting stuff in writing. That’s Newton’s game anyway whenever he’s asked a question.
April 23, 2012 at 10:07 AM
Until the entire report is made public it is difficult to form any definitive view on either the evidence or the conclusions. Having said that, I do agree with the comments thus far that the entire process sounds seriously flawed.
April 23, 2012 at 10:45 AM
Fair dinkum there’s gotta be something in the water of Glen Eira that makes us the bully capitol of the world. Got bullies coming out of our ears with all these rotten councillors. Poor old Andy continually bullied. Not once, not twice, but now three times in the space of a few years.
April 23, 2012 at 11:44 AM
How do I read the O’Neill Report?
April 23, 2012 at 8:46 PM
Don’t think the complete report is available to the public. Surprising huh? 🙄
April 23, 2012 at 11:56 AM
Seems to me that if an allegation is made and specific incidences are provided to support the allegation then responding to each of the incidences is a response to the allegation.
Further, if Penhalluriack chose to exercise his legal rights to respond in writing then O’Niell should have advised him of “information provided by other witnesses” in writing. This failure of O’Niell is reprehensible, particularly she implies that this evidence of other witnesses is significant.
April 23, 2012 at 1:25 PM
I’ve had a gut full of the crap that goes on in this council under Newton and his minions. Pilling’s got the cheek to put a post up on his blog about the ombudsman’s report and how he strongly supported the findings and the so called inappropriate behaviour. Well that’s just fine but how about all the inappropriate behaviour that has gone on without him uttering a single word in public. From memory we’ve had Lipshutz and his conflict of interest over his son playing frisbee, Esakoff’s heritage joke and support from the gang at our expense. Mustn’t forget all the abuses of the local law when both Esakoff and now Hyams are mayor. There’s the Liphsutz gagging of councillors and the tag team triple of him, Tang and Hyams with their ridiculous points of order. We’ve had another municipal inspectors report. Whiteside’s resigned over governance. Feldman’s disappeared and it goes on and on.
Pilling’s email to other councillors shows exactly the conniving that’s allowed to go on over the requests for reports. We’ve got a council that’s sinking fast and councillors who are useless in either stopping this or are actively supporting the continuing abuses.
I can’t wait for the full truth to come out over gesac and how this disaster is going to hit our hip pockets. We shouldn’t expect anything different when you’ve got Lipshutz in charge of the committee and on the audit committee for the last century and the morons keep putting him back onto these important positions. They and Newton are all a total waste of space and the sooner people start realising this the better off we’l be.
April 23, 2012 at 4:12 PM
We’re supposed to believe that the O’Neil report only cost $10,000 according to the minutes. Rubbish. If a lawyer cost $9000 for the half day appearance at the planning panel on the hawthorn road heritage louse up, then there’s no way that she only cost $10,000. Even if she was really cheap (maybe $150 per hour) I still reckon it would be closer to double this amount.
April 23, 2012 at 5:31 PM
We’re back in the same old territory as the FOI application. How “independent” are such investigators when they are probably hired on the recommendation of officers and paid for by council. This isn’t casting aspersions on O’Neill per se, I’m just querying the process and commenting on how none of these things are taking place on a level playing ground. In most councils this would not be a problem. In Glen Eira it certainly is in my view. We’ve had consultants upon consultants and its incredible how many of them produce the “findings” that seem to endorse what officers want. This could be just another example of this trend.
April 23, 2012 at 9:54 PM
Well what a load of heavies ii the kangeroo court. Not all witnesses Frank nominated were called because “theaccuser, the judge, and jury ( the all in one pack)” ruled that a mere handful of witnesses on the opposing side would be heard. And strangely enough the Glen Eira Counil lawyer Ms Donna Graham has since resigned … was she proud of this contribution she made at council or did she feel she wanted to run away from this shoddy organisation before her legal caree was ruined????
Bring back Voltaire fast so at least it wil be possible for opposing views to be expressed.
Does anyone agree that most of the councillors and council so called executives who are employed by the accused maybe influenced by their excellenT salary packages of over $200,000. Perhaps they were worried if their boss AN was found to be making false accusations then their futures may be at risk if a new boss came.
April 23, 2012 at 11:39 PM
So the O’Neill Report is unavailable to all of us except Glen Eira. Me thinks the Report has been leaked by you know who. Perhaps the rumour is true . Is the Hawthorn Rd trader Glen Eira ?
April 24, 2012 at 9:30 AM
Maybe it’s been leaked by an officer with a conscience!
April 24, 2012 at 11:53 AM
Yep and pigs fly. All formal enquiries are finding against the Councillor in question and yet what this Blog does is continuously attack not just the findings but the integrity of the individuals producing these reports. Could it be that the good Councillor involved may have done the wrong thing?
April 24, 2012 at 1:59 PM
Sure he may have. Doesn’t excuse dodgy process.