After all the huff and puff about bullying it looks like all the money that has been spent on O’Neill and other lawyers has finally bitten the dust. It no longer constitutes any of the charges that Penhalluriack will be facing at VCAT.
O’Neill cost ratepayers just over $10,000 – or so it’s claimed. We don’t believe a word of this! We would think that the sum would be closer to three times this amount and that’s a very conservative estimate. When the lawyer for the Heritage/Esakoff farce cost $9000 for half a day’s performance, then you can bet your bottom dollar that O’Neill would have cost much, much more. Then there are the further expenses with additional advice by probably heaps of other lawyers (ie Maddocks & did Tang declare a conflict of interest each time?) on what to do with the O’Neill report and how to go about the Councillor Conduct Panel processes. More money down the drain! The gang even resolved to send Penhalluriack to bullying classes and offered to spend up to $2,500.
So after all these costs, after all the hullaballoo about bullying, what’s happened? Why has this suddenly all gone out the window? If the ‘evidence’ was so strong, so invincible, so irrefutable, surely it would still be part of the actual VCAT charges? But it’s not.
This alone reveals the extent to which the entire O’Neill saga lacks credibility and demands a full investigation. How anyone could devise the pages and pages of ‘allegations’ and then not to follow through is astonishing. How councillors could be led by the nose over such a report is even more astonishing.
So after months and months of toing and froing, the allegations of bullying made by Newton have now ended up in the dustbin of history. Why? Especially since the minutes record both Hyams and Lipshutz continually resorting to the language of ‘bullying’ when they gagged Penhalluriack’s right to ask questions.
History tells us that Newton has had an unfortunate period at the helm. There has been claim after claim of ‘bullying’. History also tells us that each time his contract has come up for renewal, ratepayers are slugged with huge legal bills. Council itself has admitted to approximately $40,000 for one reappointment not so long ago. Again, we have to ask, why? We doubt very much whether any other CEO in the state would have such a record, nor whether any other CEO in the state has been at the centre of so many legal squabbles and investigations.
When councillors take leave of their senses, and ostensibly forget their obligations to spend ratepayers’ money wisely, instead deciding to blindly follow the leader as has happened so often in Glen Eira, then it is surely time that residents started questioning the ability of these individuals to govern anything. Witch-hunts and kangaroo courts do not in our view equate with good governance, prudence, and principles of natural justice. We do not need to remind readers that this whole sorry mess is still far from over. And meanwhile, the cash register continues to click over at our expense.
Glen Eira Debates 
June 23, 2012 at 11:16 PM
Penhalluriack challenges C60 but is bullied off the racecourse committee. Penhalluriack questions the lack of progress on the racecourse agreement between the MRC and Council and is bullied there too. The only bullying I see is against Frank. Can we just merge this Council with Port Phillip, Stonnington or Bayside (anyone) and get rid of this useless Council and save us all the embarrassment of the current administration? Please.
June 23, 2012 at 11:32 PM
All will be worth it to see Newton, Hyams and Lipshutz in the stand all sweating like pigs under cross examination. Will be the best show in town.
June 24, 2012 at 9:23 AM
O’Neil was chosen by the town hall and paid by the town hall. Bush justice at its best. Laughable. Does anyone think that she would have come up with an outcome that was saying that their vwas no bullying when the the alleged victim had to sign her sign off on her huge fees.
June 24, 2012 at 1:58 PM
Glen Eira can you explain this blog in a manner that I can understand it. What about the Ombudsman?
June 24, 2012 at 2:40 PM
Same bull as the O’Neill report that he swallowed hook, line and sinker. If all the swanky weasel lawyers don’t see any merit in O’Neill then there’s no merit in the ombudsman report. Funny how Overland has the same kind of criticisms of Brouwer – biased, lousy investigation and no fair play.
June 24, 2012 at 4:39 PM
I happened to catch the Overland interview with Jon Faine. His main objections to the report focused on the way the investigation was undertaken – no idea of the allegations,a refusal to provide a transcript of the interview itself and then his 15,000 word answer according to him is entirely overlooked by the ombudsman.
The past few months have revealed some alarming things about both the Inspectorate and the Ombudsman and the way that investigations are conducted. Whether this is a result of lack of staff and hurried investigations, or straight out politics is debatable. I don’t think that both of these groups should be permitted to operate the way they do. They should not be exempt from normal legal practice. It doesn’t sound like they are.
If the O’Neill report and the allegations of bullying have disappeared then the whole affair has been an awful waste of public resources.
June 25, 2012 at 7:30 AM
live about 500 metres away from where the circus is being held but notice I could hear it on Saturday night. Also notice that I could hear model planes all weekend which is something MRC says we need. What is there overall objective to piss off everyone in the community. I bet if Black Caviar wasnt away they wouldnt be disturbing his beauty sleep.
June 26, 2012 at 2:04 AM
Well regardless of all our cash out the window it is to be hoped that the Mayor and other Councillos have the idea that it is only justice to allow all councillors to participate in debates. My representative has had the unpleasaqnt tactics applied in about 95% of cases in that torture chamber.
So in short the other seven are pulled into order by those OTHER points of order for only 5% of occurences. Yes the council torture chamber makes me feel ill when I attend and I ALWAYS NEED A STIFF BRANDY WHEN I RETURN HOME DUE TO THE COMPLETE IGNORANCE of NORMAL RULES OF DEBATE.
June 26, 2012 at 9:31 PM
Fling enough mud and some of it will stick. What was originally touted as allegations weren’t really: they read more as a history of incidents. To be treated seriously as allegations each claim would need to be linked back to a breach of governing legislation or regulations.
Now that a new Council Plan has been prepared, its instructive to revisit the multiple failures to implement the previous Plan. Take “Governance” for example. Allegedly the strategic objective back then was “To govern the City in a democratic, open and responsible manner in the best interests of the community as a whole”. Here we are, 4 years later, battling excessive secrecy everywhere. There is no accountability, and Council is prepared to spend considerable sums of money to prevent information from being made public. The website isn’t kept up-to-date, policies aren’t all published, Council has actively discriminated against sections of the municipality.
Today’s Age reports on a matter currently before VCAT, involving our Planning Minister, Matthew Guy. Its claimed that the Government is resisting an FOI application that might show the Minister ignored advice from his Department, and it is further claimed that he ordered the Department to change its advice. We should all remember how Smithers J decided in a different application that nothing was in the public interest, because it might “confuse” us. He wasn’t even able to tell the difference between Council and Council staff. It doesn’t bode well for any future hearing if such carelessness is typical.