Our previous post concerned the Racecourse and Council. It is therefore opportune to publish the following allegation made by Newton against Penhalluriack. We remind readers that:
- Newton never put these allegations in writing
- They were compiled/constructed by O’Neill based on the ‘discussions’ and documents provided to her by Newton
- The following is a verbatim copy of the O’Neill compiled ‘evidence’ pertaining to Allegation 2 and presumably what Penhalluriack was expected to respond to.
ALLEGATION 2
That Councillor Penhalluriack has humiliated the CEO on numerous occasions (detailed below) by making derogatory and offensive remarks about him in public at Council Meetings and to the CEO directly and to other Councillors in correspondence concerning the CEO’s dealings with the Melbourne Racing Club (“MRC”), the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trustees (“CRRT”) and the Department of Sustainability and Environment (“DSE”) and Minister’s Office. These statements have been made without supporting evidence or other factual basis for making the statements. These statements have damaged the CEO’s reputation and standing, undermine the CEO in his employment and have caused the CEO stress, harm and hurt feelings.
| Early Oct 2009 | Councillor Penhalluriack distributes letter (later dated 12 October 2009) to Councillors and lobbies for support against the CEO with respect to meetings held with MRC and the CRRT |
| 12 Oct 2009 | Councillor Penhalluriack attends the CEO’s office to hand him the letter referred to below. The letter does not disclose that copies were provided to a number of recipients and not just the CEO. The CEO reads the letter from Councillor Penhalluriack and tells him that the letter is inaccurate and he will respond in writing. The CEO declines to discuss the matter until after he has responded in writing. |
| 12 Oct 2009 | Councillor Penhalluriack (as Chairman of the Racecourse Committee) writes a letter to the CEO. The letter suggests that the CEO has acted inappropriately with respect to the MRC and CRRT and makes the following allegations:
|
| 12 Oct 2009 | The CEO responds by email to Councillor Penhalluriack explaining that there was nothing inappropriate. The letter refers to the invitation and provides a copy, the invitation request that the CEO attend the meeting to “explain your deliberations regarding the amendment to the Joint Communiqué’ and “A report on the amended plans for the Centre of the course would also be appreciated”. The CEO confirms that he informed the Mayor and the two councillors who were also Trustees (Councillor Whiteside, and Councillor Tang) and that these Councillors were present during the time that the CEO spoke and for the remainder of the meeting. The CEO explains that the Communiqué had been the subject of Council resolutions on 1 July 2008 and 21 July 2009 and was a formal decision of Council, which under section 94A of the Local Government Act 1989 he was required to implement without delay. The CEO confirms that he has only attended meetings with MPs in support of the Mayor and/or Councillors. The only discussions with the MRC have been to get the Council approved Communiqué implemented. |
| 12 Oct 2009 | Email exchange between Councillor Penhalluriack and the CEO alleging that the CEO had acted in a threatening manner and lost his temper in their meeting on 12 October 2010. Councillor Penhalluriack accuses the CEO of being over sensitive to matters that only require a “civil and respectful response. Good and regular communication keeps working relationships much more pleasant.” The CEO denies the allegation in his email. Councillor Penhalluriack alleges that the CEO is not comfortable with his election. The CEO states that he has no difficulty with Councillor Penhalluriack’s election, but that Councillor Penhalluriack should not commit himself to “written accusations before finding out the facts.” |
| 12 Oct 2010 | Councillor Penhalluriack moved a motion (that was passed) that the CEO report on each meeting between Council Officers and the MRC in the preceding 12 months. This was done in the context of an accusation that the Council was not being kept informed by the CEO about his meetings with the CRRT and the MRC. |
| 3 Nov 2010 | The CEO provides the report required by the motion proposed by Councillor Penhalluriack on 12 October 2010. The report sets out each meeting and its content. The report shows that the CEO met with the MRC on three matters (the upgrade of the centre, C60 and ANZAC Day) and that the CEO has declined all offers of hospitality. The report was unanimously approved. Councillor Penhalluriack was at the meeting. |
| 23 Feb 2011 | Councillor Penhalluriack sends an email to Councillor Magee, Councillor Pilling, Councillor Lobo and Councillor Forge. In that email he makes the following statements:
At the pre-meeting, Councillors strongly disagreed between themselves, but the CEO did not speak. Council had previously persuaded the Parliamentary Select Committee on Public Land Development to tackle the Caulfield Racecourse Crown Land – this was based on submissions drafted by the CEO. |
| 28 March 2011 | Email from Kerry Henningsen of DSE to the CEO requesting that Council provide a list of nominations rather than one nomination so that the Minister can select the person to replace Helen Whiteside. This was the first contact that the CEO had with the Minister’s Office and he had no contact with Mr Thomas or with the Minister for Crown Lands concerning this or other matters. The CEO was also unaware that Councillors Forge and Penhalluriack were meeting with Mr Thomas. |
| 28 Mar 2011 | CEO tries to call Councillor Forge on her mobile to inform her of the email referred to above. He leaves a message for her to call him. Councillor Forge does not return the call. When he cannot speak to her he sends an email detailing the request made by DSE. |
| 2 April 2011 | Councillor Penhalluriack writes a letter to Mayor Esakoff in which he strongly criticises, the CEO, Peter Jones, DSE, MRC and the CRRT. With respect to the CEO and his interactions with the MRC, CRRT and the DSE. He states:
|
| 7 April 2011 | Councillor Penhalluriack writes to the CEO to raise the following matters. The letter alleges unnecessary haste in bringing forward meeting concerning Caulfield Racecourse and alleges that this is poor governance as this was done “without any discussion with Councillors”. (our emphases) He further alleges that “your Communiqué failed” as the Council had been lead to believe that training would be gone in the medium term and MRC are saying 10 years. He states that “we had better accept that we are dealing with devious fibbers”. Councillor Penhalluriack alleges that the public consultation is incomplete and written submissions are required with one-on one dialogue with those who actively support or reject the proposal. (our emphases) |
| 8 April 2011 | Councillor Penhalluriack raises two matters with the CEO in a memo received on 8 April 2011. In this memo, Councillor Penhalluriack queries why the documents were marked confidential. He also requests a copy of all associated documents between the CRRT and/or the MRC and or other parties. He asserts that the previous requests had been “denied on the grounds that in your opinion they were not relevant to my role as a Councillor” he goes on to assert that this is incorrect. |
| 8 April 2011 | The CEO responds to the email received from Councillor Penhalluriack on 8 April 2011. The CEO first explains the terminology used, the reasons for it and the need for Confidentiality. The CEO informs Councillor Penhalluriack that the second half of Councillor Penhalluriack’s email will be responded to separately. |
| 11 April 2011 | Donna Graham, Legal Counsel, replies to the second half of Councillor Penhalluriack. Ms Graham’s refers to the fact that she has previously provided this advice to Councillor Penhalluriack. Ms Graham also advises that in her legal opinion the documents are not subject to any councillor entitlement to inspect and for the same reason would not be subject to a Freedom of Information application. Ms Graham also states that as Councillor Penhalluriack cannot participate in any debate on these matters on the basis of the Winky Popdecision, Officers cannot accede to his request.If Council disagrees it could seek an independent legal advice on the issue, Councillor Penhalluriack does not seek this resolution from Council. (our emphases) |
| 11 April 2011 | The CEO responds to the letter sent by Councillor Penhalluriack on 7 April 2011. The CEO refers to the meeting on the 13 December 2010 of the Caulfield Racecourse Precinct Special Committee where it resolved that public consultation (or oral submissions) would take place on a date to be fixed. The date was fixed and it was carried out on 4 April 2011. The CEO reminds Councillor Penhalluriack that the Communiqué was authorised by Council Resolution on 21 July 2009 not by the CEO. Finally, the CEO states that the Amendment C60 is before the Caulfield Racecourse Precinct Special Committee not any Officers, it originated in 2007, was exhibited in 2009 and was the subject of an independent panel in 2010 with 6 days of hearing and a 147 page report. That Committee will decide whether to adopt the recommendations, modify them, abandon it or take some other action. |
| 27 April 2011 | Council Meeting –Councillor Penhalluriack moved for a report on each meeting that Andrew Newton had with the MRC or CRRT. He referred publicly to the CEO acting inappropriately. He states:
|
| 28 April 2011 | Local blog reports on the request (inaccurately) with respect to the Councillor Penhalluriack’s allegation that the CEO was meeting with the MRC behind the Council’s backs. The CEO is referred to in an unflattering manner by the Blog |
Glen Eira Debates 
May 13, 2012 at 8:53 AM
Surely there must be more to it than this – for Council and Newton to have pursued Penhalluriack this doggedly for 2 years and only come up with the above is not only pathetic but a blatant waste of ratepayers money (both in terms of misused Council resources and $’s in legal fees).
What I see above is a Cr. representing his constituency on a very contentous issue and pursuing information that should have been freely available but instead was with held. Nothing wrong with that pursuit particularly when one considers the scale of the development concerned and how the process of approving the development was so skillfuly engineered to favour the developer at the expense of the residents.
The above accusations and evidence against Penhalluriack are paltry – put them the appropriate political context and they are not worthy of consideration.
May 13, 2012 at 9:21 AM
Residents have been badly let down by Council and Newton in the handling of C60. Here was a great chance to get much needed open space in Glen Eira. Instead we get over development and the much publicized agreement has been ripped up by the MRC, now that they have got what they want. All should be sacked and no doubt this will all feature heavily at the October elections. Unfortunately Newton again has escaped without being held to account and continues in his Machiavellian way.
May 13, 2012 at 9:49 AM
GESAC is a wonderful facility and a great asset to our community. Our rates are amongst the lowest of any Council. When the agreement between Council and the Caulfield Racecourse is soon fulfilled, we will have a great park. Time for this site to look on the positive rather than the negative.
May 13, 2012 at 12:05 PM
There are lots of positives in Glen Eira! What Debates does do is probe the way in which many decisions come about. Are we being led by a democratically elected Council who in turn is being advised by salaried administrators or are the salaried administrators dictating the way in which Glen Eira is heading?
If I was a Councillor I would expect to be kept informed of all decisions and consultations (EOi’s) that take place and in turn have the opportunity to provide feedback.
May 13, 2012 at 10:05 AM
After reading the post several times I’ve found myself oscillating between despair and joy. I’m overjoyed to find a councillor who stands by his election promises and has tried his utmost to ensure that residents receive a fair deal. I despair however at what is the repeated abuse of power by Newton and undoubtedly his little cohort of councillors. There’s something totally awry, if not outright pathological when administrators who are responsible for a multi-million dollar industry would have to have spent hours and hours collecting such drivel instead of concentrating their energies in achieving the best for residents.
Penhalluriack’s consistent refrain here is that councillors, and especially himself, are not privy to all the necessary information. What’s truly amazing is that as chair of the advisory Racecourse Committee Penhalluriack is not given access to the documents he requires. This is not Winky Pop since advisory committees do not make decisions. It’s Newton using the resident paid for corporate lawyer to do his bidding.
I want to thank Penhalluriack for having the integrity to stand by his principles and promises despite what is clearly a concerted and vicious campaign to discredit him. The blog also should be commended for allowing residents to make up their own mind as to what has really been going on.
May 13, 2012 at 10:35 AM
O’Neill’s work here is far from “independent”. It’s full of the Newton influenced editorialising that’s pure crap. Can someone please tell me what the hell has Forge not answering Newton’s phone call got to do with Penhalluriack being a “bully”? Fair dinkum, if councillors accepted this bullshit then they’re more moronic or greater cowards than I’d previously thought.
May 13, 2012 at 11:30 AM
Objectively reading the allegations outlined above has me scratching my head. The allegations are ambiguous, I’d say the verdict could go either way – depending on your stance you could find in favour of either Penhalluriack or Newton. There is nothing clear cut or of any significance in the allegations.
May 13, 2012 at 12:12 PM
When councillors have to scrounge and beg for information that should be automatically theirs then we’re not living in a proper run council. We’re living in a dicatorship run by Newton and Burke. They get their way because they’ve got the gang in their pockets. Penhalluriack hasn’t done anything wrong here except trying to do what he was elected for and certainly no worse than the abuse that has been hurled at residents and other councillors by Lipshutz and Hyams.
May 13, 2012 at 4:12 PM
Dear Glen Eira,
Could you please clarify something for me and I hope that I am reading this correctly, you quote below,
That Councillor Penhalluriack has humiliated the CEO on numerous occasions (detailed below) by making derogatory and offensive remarks about him in public at Council Meetings
Sorry I am not up to speed as I have been living under a rock, so could you please answer the following questions.
1) What is happening to Cr Penhalluriack in relation to the derogatory and offensive remarks he allegedly made?
2) Who was the governing body, department or individuals who decide on what happens to Cr Penhalluriack in relation to these public comments?
3) Who is the governing body, department or individuals who decides and has jurisdiction on whether the comments are deemed to be derogatory and offensive, or they are deemed to be acceptable?
If you could answer these it would be appreciated.
Thank you,
Nick Varvodic
May 13, 2012 at 4:44 PM
Dear Mr Varvodic,
we assume that on the basis of these allegations and the O’Neill report that a majority of councillors decided to refer Cr Penhalluriack to a Councillor Conduct Panel. Cr Penhalluriack is contesting this at VCAT in August. Council resolutions of course only require 5 councillor votes to pass. We leave it to your imagination to guess who those councillors might have been:-).
May 13, 2012 at 3:57 PM
If this is representative of the quality of the “evidence” that Newton has assembled then I’d say that Penhalluriack hasn’t got a thing to worry about.
May 13, 2012 at 4:00 PM
Poor old Andrew. Fancy complaining that someone sends emails to councillors or blind copies and you’re not told who. Yes, a real hanging offence that one. Then there’s the most awful crime imaginable. Someone wanting information!! That deserves a hanging and quartering.
If only all other councillors had the guts of Penhalluriack we’d have a heaps better council.
May 13, 2012 at 8:12 PM
This post highlights an unhealthy relationship between the Glen Eira Council CEO and the MRC. Such an unhealthy relationship still exists today where on Friday the Council intentionally removed the MRC agreement on use of the racecourse from the front page of it’s website where it had been sitting for over 12 months probably after this blog questioned what was happening.
May 13, 2012 at 8:46 PM
Glen Eira maybe you think we are all fools but I for one have read the Ombudsman’s Report and the extremely disturbing Findings against Penhalluriack.He must resign.
May 13, 2012 at 9:05 PM
Maybe you can share the specifics you are referring to so as we too are enlightened. Some of us don’t have the time to sift through the report so, I for one, would appreciate your findings.
May 13, 2012 at 9:10 PM
I’ve read his report too and find that all he’s done is accept the O’Neill version of events and disregarded every thing else. If your looking for bias then you’ve found it in his report. Maybe you should go back and have another read of the allegations and think about how lame they are. Any half decent lawyer will tear them to shreds.
May 13, 2012 at 9:36 PM
There are two versions of events here.The Newton version and what Forge said. I can’t see any reason why the MRC would tell her something that wasn’t true. They’d be idiots not to try and tee up as many meetings as they could to get the c60 and the racecourse issue pushed through. That boils down to accepting Newton’s version that he’s always kept councillors informed and that he’s never had a meeting without councillors knowing or what Forge has said. I’d believe Forge’s story way before accepting anything Newton or Burke said.
May 13, 2012 at 10:50 PM
I think that O’Neill really needs to find herself a new career if this is the standard of work that she produces or if she is that easily deluded into accepting the validity of any of these allegations and even thinking that they might stand up in a court of law. Penhalluriack might be guilty of intemperate language at times but that is a far cry from bullying. I’d agree with Mr Varvodic that telling someone they live under a rock is far more insulting and demeaning than anything produced by Penhalluriack here. Truth is always the best defence and as others have stated, when it comes to believing Newton’s spin then I’ll side with Penhalluriack each and every time. I do believe that councillors are not given the information they need to adequately perform their tasks. I also believe that only the gang are privy to some information and that this isn’t distributed to all councillors. The Municipal Inspector has already had something to say about such instances – it obviously hasn’t sunk through and Newton and Burke just continue along in their merry way. Ultimately what needs to happen is that the mandarins running this show need their wings clipped. If the Municipal Inspector and even the ombudsman is so blind to these abuses, then the Minister must step in, or the electorate must ensure that in November people with gumption and honesty are elected.
May 14, 2012 at 9:31 AM
question what is in it for the gang if the car park in the middle of the racecourse is finished in time for the elections. Is it because if they dont get reelected then they would not be able to move to state politics. Surely it cant be that great being a counciller for 20k year with all the work you have to do?. Is the MRC trying to rush to get it all done before the new election because it might not have as friendlier council after the elections. Any of the anonymous people here running?
May 14, 2012 at 10:49 AM
The Ombudsmans Report can be read via Council’s home page.It would’nt make any difference to you lot because the sick attitude is that everyone is wrong except Cr Penhalluriack.You lot rubbish ONeill,The Ombudsman. Council, Andrew Newton and in the near future the VCAT Member, all of whom have or will find that your little mate is unworthy to hold the position of Councillor.You lot think you are doing Frank a favour, but in fact you are causing him a great deal of harm.He needs to apologise for his behavior rather than rely on anonymous bloggers who revise the truth.I am sure that VCAT will investigate Frank’s relationship with his disgraced nominee Goudge and the circumstances that led to Liberal Members of our State Parliament being used to force a closure to the Murrumbeena High School Site conflict caused by the Developer not complying with building standards.You all know who the Developer was?
May 14, 2012 at 10:52 AM
The circus will continue to roll on, and eventually we hope competent professionals will drill down on the specifics of relevant matters. Reading through the above list, I didn’t see much support for the Allegation in the potted history provided. The Allegation concerns “derogatory and offensive remarks”, but its not clear what the remarks are that are considered derogatory and offensive. Several remarks can definitely be considered to be critical. Other matters are subordinate. I do wonder about the motives of some leaks to The Leader—whether they were intended to cause anybody stress, harm, hurt feelings, or undermine their reputation and standing. The Ombudsman, in relying so heavily on material from O’Neill, didn’t enhance the reputation of that office, already tarnished in the wake of the critical report examining his efforts concerning Brimbank.
May 14, 2012 at 11:25 AM
I’m assuming that what’s considered derogatory is Penhalluriack’s claim that decisions are “done in the context of an accusation that the Council was not being kept informed by the CEO about his meetings with the CRRT and the MRC”. There’s also this section from O’Neill – “behind our backs wheeling and dealing”. Other claims of “humiliation” include Penhalluriack’s conviction that Newton is behind most if not all Council decisions and policy direction.
It would be extremely difficult to discount Penhalluriack’s claims since in the Whelan Report there’s Newton proudly expounding on his “no surprises” policy and that senior administrators meet on a weekly basis. No records are ever provided about the content of such meetings and I’m sure that councillors are not told what is discussed and what decisions are made. It’s also hard to believe that as CEO on a salary of at least $340,000 per annum and probably a car thrown in and maybe some bonuses, that Newton wouldn’t be across every single major policy decision that’s made. If he isn’t, then he should resign.
I suspect that everything is worked out in these officer only meetings. What happens then is that the gang are called in to ratify the decisions so everything is legal and Newton can claim that he never makes a decision. It’s all too neat and devious. What convinces me of this is that I remember a Penhalluriack motion that got through about the racecourse and when Lipshutz and Hyams attempted to get Newton appointed to the “negotiating” team that was defeated. At the next Council meeting there was the sneaky amendment that got through and Newton got onto
the team. A lot can happen in three weeks to those councillors who had previously voted with Penhalluriack and then turned around and voted with Lipshutz and Hyams. Nothing but nothing happens in Glen Eira without the 6 heavies having a guiding hand in it I would think.
May 14, 2012 at 11:42 AM
All this is insane! they say they’ve already spent $65,000. People should start asking these councillors why they didn’t insist that Newton and Penhalluriack go to mediation first of all. If Newton refused then that’s his problem. Since they reappointed him it sure doesn’t look good not to keep supporting him to the hilt even if it ends up costing over $100,000 of our money and rates keep going up and up and up and up.
May 14, 2012 at 12:05 PM
Whats happened is done and we cannot change it. C60 got through and the MRC development is going to happen. What I cannot understand is what is happening to the racecourse agreement between Council and the MRC. Certain things had to be completed a month ago and from what I understand from complaints around the traps is that there has been no update from Council or the MRC. We all know this Council is hopeless with the past, looks like its stuffed in the present and future too.
May 14, 2012 at 12:27 PM
The hypocrisy of this Council absolutely stinks.
Being told you live under a rock is not as significant as some of the other comments I have received during the same tirade on 14th December 2010.
I have been asked “when was the last time I bashed my wife”, but this was asked rhetorically so that makes it ok and acceptable as most Councillors now astonishingly claim.
During the same reply I have also been told I appear to be a follower of Joseph Goebbels school of thought, having grown up in North Caulfield I have many extremely close Jewish friends who found this as offensive as I did.
It appears to be one rule for one and another rule for others.
How can Cr Penhalluriack be guilty of offensive and derogatory comments in a public council meeting yet Cr Lipshutz is not?
I wrote to then Mayor Cr Esakoff and stated I want a written apology or I will be seeking a Council Code of Conduct review in the first instance, otherwise a Municipal Association of Victoria Conduct Panel Review. I also stated and I don’t think I could have been any more reasonable by saying that if I got this apology I was going to put the matter to rest. We all awaited the next council meeting and their was NO apology for the actua offensive comments, just a token apology for a misunderstanding that I had taken the comments the wrong way, there is a monumental difference there.
I have NEVER received a written apology for the actual comments and challenge Council to produce one if they think they have ever issued one. I have never had a letter, e-mail, text, phone call or personal meet and greet, absolutely nothing in the way of a written apology as I requested.
One other fact that beggars disbelief and shows how hypocritical most of these councillors are is the following Council meeting I asked almost all Councillors if they found the comments directed towards me as acceptable. Sure enough like peas in a pod they all found the comments acceptable,(I personally don’t believe them, I think they like safety in numbers) thus setting a precedent that a councillor for argument sake can call a person a rapist or pedophile but as long as the comments are made rhetorically its ok. How can this be allowed and tolerated, surely disgusting comments like this have no place anywhere let alone a public Council meeting.
Cr Penhalluriack if you are reading this all you have to do is claim “rhetorical”, otherwise it appears you may possibly be being discriminated against by your fellow councillors after they have set the offensive comment precedent.
May 14, 2012 at 1:49 PM
which counciller said made this comment about your wife? I know what I would have done rhetorically.
May 14, 2012 at 2:04 PM
If people wish to read the full diatribe by Lipshutz then we suggest they go to the minutes of December 14, 2010.
May 14, 2012 at 1:43 PM
Nick, if you were subjected to the taunts you say you were then the behaviour of those involved is disgusting. However what has your situation got to do with this situation?
May 14, 2012 at 3:46 PM
Hi Anonymous,
I think it’s very clear if you read the first 3 lines at the top of this post under “Allegation 2”. I think the double standards are incredible, how can one be offensive but the other isn’t?
May 14, 2012 at 8:28 PM
Maybe it looks like a double session needs to be booked at the tribunal, many good folk have waited for this day…. Karma
May 15, 2012 at 7:27 AM
There is no place for vitriolic diatribe like this and to come from the mouth of an elected councillor is just not acceptable in todays society. It is a very good point why the other representative councillors have not stood up and said anything as I certainly wouldnt want to be painted with the same brush. You need to report this immediately.
May 15, 2012 at 8:14 AM
Nick dont get me wrong the comments directed towards you would have been offensive to any of us. The critical point you must establish is to compare the comments directly against the comments Frank has allegedly made. Once they are established then you can make a judgment if they are in the same province. If they are then you have a very strong case and I wish you all the best.
May 15, 2012 at 8:58 AM
Is this the same Lipshutz councillor that was on the anti defamatory council, this is gold, what a bunch of hypocrites alright. It’s abuse when good old Franky comments but when this arrogant piece of work comments everything is sweet as.
May 15, 2012 at 5:52 PM
It’s no wonder ordinary people find the behaviour of council unbearable when the mayor never answers questions asked at PUBLIC questions. I believe someone else composes the answer and the Mayor reads out the hopeless answers… which rarely answer the question asked. Methinks Nick V. was vicitm of this absolute vagueness and writings given him and expected to answer his questions. The answere are all inadequate and often misguided.
One mayor told me that a toddlers’ play area on a busy road and opening out onto a path where many cars towing traiors, trucks and tractors all passed right next the other opening…”that council would not be installing a gate and that toddlers and children were the reponsibility of their parents and guardians” and that MRC adult patrons needed a fence on our footpath in Station Street with a gateway so as patrons would not be pushed into taxis at the rank. Who really matters to Glen Eira Council?