The following is from the in camera Council minutes of 20th September, 2011. We have two simple questions for residents to mull over:
- Is this nonsense worth $65,000 and rising?
- Who are the real bullies?
“At the Council meeting of 30 August Council resolved
That Council:
Following consideration of the responses provided by the CEO and Cr. Penhalluriack in relation to the O’Neill report
1.
(a) Resolves that Cr Penhalluriack puts all questions to the CEO and/or Officers in writing and submits them to the Mayor except where questions arise during the course of a meeting.
(b) Directs Cr Penhalluriack not to make any accusations to the CEO and/or Officers unless he has supporting evidence (which must be produced at the time of making the accusations)
(c) Urges the Chair to strictly enforce point of order at Council meetings concerning accusations made by any Councillor without any supporting evidence
(d) Encourages all Councillors to take responsibility for the occupational health and safety of the CEO and/or Officers by taking steps to prevent bullying by acting on any incidents that they may witness and making points of order when accusations without evidence are made.
(e) Requires Cr Penhalluriack to undergo training on bullying and the appropriate way to phrase questions at meetings and authorises the Mayor to ppoint an appropriate expert to carry out such training to a maximum expenditure of $2,500 (our emphasis)
(f) Offers the CEO and Cr Penhalluriack Employee Assistance Support
2. Notes Tracey O’Neill’s recommendation to refer Cr Penhalluriack to a Councillor conduct panel and reserves the right to implement this recommendation should the above recommendations not be effective.
3. Appoints an independent arbiter, nominated by the MAV, to rule on issues relating to workplace safety identified in the O’Neill report and to ensure that recommendations are implemented and maintained to ensure a safe effective and productive workplace.
4. Strongly urges Cr Penhalluriack to exclude himself from all discussion in relation to the CEO contract and should he fail to do so, consider the formation of a special committee for CEO contract matters.
5. Notifies Cr Penhalluriack and the CEO of this resolution.
Issues
- Cr Penhalluriack’s behaviour subsequent to Council resolution 30 August
Subsequent to the Council meeting of 30 August a number of OH&S incidents have occurred these include
- 7 September 2011 – Cr Penhalluriack requested Council Officer (CEO) to supply him with Council Minutes and architectural drawings for Duncan Mackinnon pavilion contrary to the above resolution and also while having a certificate declaring himn unfit for any duties.
- 7 September 2011 – Incident report 00553 – in breach of 12.10 Cr Penhalluriack attempted to direct officers to supply him with a Victoria Police report, an arborist report and photographs regarding a tree vandalism incident.
- 7 September 2011 – Incident report 03554 – in breach of 12.10 Cr Penhalluriack emailed a Council Officer again requesting Council minutes
- 7 September 2011 – Incident report 03555 – in breach of 12.10 Cr Penhalluriack approached a Council Officer requesting information making the Officer feel under pressure to comply
- 7 September 2011 – Incident report 03556 – in breach of 12.10 Cr Penhalluriack directed a Council Officer to copy the minutes from the 30 August Council meeting after being refused he then went through the Officer’s desk and read the minutes, which had yet to be distributed, taking hand written notes.
- 8 September 2011 – (CEO statement) Cr Penhalluriack attended the Citizenship Ceremony from 8.00pm until 8.50pm where he engaged other Councillors in conversation regarding the Caulfield Park Pavilion and amendment C60. Cr Penhalluraick (sic) then went to the City Management area and read the confidential minutes from the last Council meeting at an Officer’s desk. He was seen to still be there at 9.30pm reading through the confidential minutes. (our emphasis)
- 12 September 2011 – in breach of 12.10 Cr Penhalluriack attempted conversation with Council Officers (CEO) (our emphasis)
- 12 September 2011 – Incident report 03557 – in breach of 12.10 Cr Penhalluriack questioned a Council Officer about Council documents leaving the Officer shaken and distressed
Also in discussion with an Officer from OccCorp in relation to Councillor Penhalluriack’s potential WorkCover claim OccCorp advised that Cr Penhalluriack stated that “The CEO term finishes in April so that it will all be over by then.”
Glen Eira Debates 
May 28, 2012 at 9:53 PM
We’ve got one pretty sick so and so shown up here . Time to go when it becomes a crime to talk to other councillors and the spies are out in force being paid by my hard earned money.
May 28, 2012 at 10:03 PM
Frank, ya gotta sue the bastards. I’ll even donate to the cause.
May 28, 2012 at 10:40 PM
I’m not a lawyer, but I would say that every single point in these minutes are discriminatory, if not outright victimisation. When councillors cannot have access to council minutes and other documents according to the whim and opinion of non elected individuals then there is really something drastically wrong with this council. I don’t think the Local Government Act has thus far made it a crime to speak with other councillors or officers and what’s written above does not include verbal communication about social past-times. It refers to “questions”. Penhalluriack’s discussions with other councillors about C60 are his right as is any discussion with any officer on any subject.
The pettiness and vindictiveness contained in these minutes should be of concern to everyone. I agree fully with the commentator who says that they reveal a “sick so and so”. My fear is that this “illness” extends to at least half of the councillor group who probably voted in favour of all these ridiculous points.
May 28, 2012 at 11:45 PM
It would be instructive to know precisely what all the material evidence is against Penhalluriack. With that knowedge we would all be better placed to make an educated assessment as to whether the councillor does have a case to answer.
May 29, 2012 at 11:33 AM
The evidence we’ve seen is as wobbly as a mound of jelly. There’s the O’Neill allegations provided to her by Newton and then what are probably officer recommendations. There’s some heavy arm twisting happening here. Two council meetings are reported, 30 August and 20 September. The first lot was provisional. If Penhalluriack doesn’t do a, b, and c, then let’s send him off to a panel. The second lot is supposed to prove that he should be sent off to the panel because of all these horrendous crimes like talking to councillors and asking for minutes. Sounds like councillors were a bit reluctant to fall into line straight off so Newton had to concoct the next lot to try and force the issue. If I were Penhalluriack’s lawyer I’d be rubbing my hands in glee at the prospect of ripping all this apart.
May 29, 2012 at 6:18 AM
The ones who lose out here are the residents. No doubt the Newton has deliberately failed to enforce the Caulfield Racecourse agreement with the MRC just to spite Frank. Now all the Councillors are too scared to ask any questions about why an agreement that was signed off by Council and had to be completed by 27 April 2012 has not yet progressed. Does this mean C60 can now be reversed? The only winners here are the MRC and Newton.
May 29, 2012 at 12:37 PM
So this Blog is going to become a Kangaroo Court and blame Andrew Newton for Frank’s shocking behaviour.Well it may surprise you but this matter is before the Court and this blog will do Frank more harm than good.
May 29, 2012 at 3:13 PM
“shocking behaviour”. Like what exactly?
May 29, 2012 at 4:42 PM
It is not before the Court. You are wrong. It is before VCAT appealing a decision of Council. You are perpetrating the fear that many lawyer spread in order to control matters. Half the wackers is VCAT can’t get work anywhere else so they end up in there pretending to be a judge.
May 29, 2012 at 3:45 PM
We’re supposed to believe that Penhalluriack’s sins are that he asked for drawings about the pavilion, arborist reports and another information. I doubt that any other councillor even thought of asking for this kind of information so that they knew exactly what is proposed and hopefully they could then make really good decisions. That’s someone doing his best to make sure that money isn’t squandered and with the arborists report maybe that’s about this council’s liking for chopping down trees all over the place without telling residents. The real sin is that councillors have to beg to get the information they want and even then it’s not given to them.
May 29, 2012 at 5:11 PM
I hear there’s plenty of bullying going on behind closed doors and it ain’t coming from Penhalluriack. You win the cupey doll if you guess which councillors are leading the charge here.
May 29, 2012 at 6:07 PM
My wager’s on Lipshutz with Hyams a close second.
May 29, 2012 at 6:39 PM
Penhalluriack has been shafted by Newton for opposing the MRC development. Simple as that. I agree with anonymous – what did happen with the Caulfield Racecourse agreement. All the Pilling, Lipshutz, Hyams, Esakoff and Newton were all spruiking it when it was signed (along with State Member and Napthine), there was heaps of press. Now that the action date is over, no one is saying anything. Any ideas Gleneira why the agreement is now being ignored?
May 29, 2012 at 10:47 PM
Cr. Penhalluriach – you are wasting residents’ money. You should resign.
May 29, 2012 at 10:51 PM
This dicumentbetween the “residents representatives” and the large company (oh non_profit)is like all documents they sign. They simply take the part out which suites them and ignore/forget the rest.
June 2, 2012 at 12:08 PM
The resolution borders on being illegal. There’s no way I would have voted for it, since it is blatantly discriminatory. It also reveals that Council has engaged in a conspiracy to remove Cr Penhalluriack from any discussion concerning the CEO contract. The only things missing are who moved/seconded the motion, and who voted for it.
Councillors need to be held accountable for their vote and statements made in support of their vote. There has been no accountability for the process that led to the reappointment of the CEO, despite him being paid hundreds of thousands of dollars annually. At a very minimum, Council should disclose the “objective criteria” it used to support the reappointment and demonstrate how those same criteria were used to establish that there simply wasn’t a better candidate available anywhere. While we know it won’t, I suspect it can’t.
Suppose Cr Penhalluriack wanted to use the quality of Glen Eira’s BVP reports as part of the criteria, or progress on the MRC agreement, or timeliness of implementing Council resolutions, or availability of reports requested by Council. Why would these not be considered appropriate?
I resent Council’s use and abuse of the word “accusation”, and shame on any councillor who moved, seconded, or voted for the motion. As was minuted last year, a request for an explanation why a bunch of reports requested by Council had not been published in Council’s Minutes was labelled an accusation by Cr Esakoff. All the talk about “without evidence” is a smokescreen. The evidence is the contents of Councils’ Minutes. She admitted that all bar one of the reports had not been published in the Minutes. But still we didn’t get an explanation.
Time and again it has been revealed that information has been withheld from various subsets of councillors and we are left to speculate about the reasons. I’ve banged on before about excessive secrecy in our council, and its very clear who is responsible. The practice has to end, and if our councillors aren’t up to the challenge, then they should say so and politely decline to stand at the next election if ever we have one.