Aborted Hearing Leaves Many Questions Unanswered
Andrea Kellett
Glen Eira Councillor Frank Penhalluriack is a devastated man.
After a lengthy wait and months of preparation, misconduct allegations brought against him by Glen Eira council, which he insisted were to be heard at the public tribunal, were last week aborted after three days of the expected seven days.
Evidence from only tow of the council’s eight witnesses was heard. The council’s key witness, CEO Andrew Newton, had not been called, nor had Cr Penhalluriack.
Mr Robert Davis had, he said, known Cr Michael Lipshutz for many years. In the three days, the tributnal heard argument from Charles Gunst, QC, for Cr Penhalluriack, that Glen Eira Council staff treated his client with “disdain”.
“They ignore his questions, roll their eyes when he speaks at meetings and are resistant in providing him with information,” he said. He said his client was the victim of a vendetta “manufactured” by CEO Andrew Newton and Mr Newton used false allegations of bullying to silence his critics.
Richard Attiwill, for Glen Eira Council, denied those allegations. He urged the tribunal to find that Cr Penhalluriack’s behaviour constituted “gross misconduct”. He said Cr Penhalluriack had made “very serious” allegations against senior officers in writing and that it was “not a passing rudeness or a momentary lapse”.
The tribunal heard there was tension between Cr Penhalluriack and staff at the council and that Cr Penhalluriack was considered a “bit of a nuisance”.
Council community services director Peter Jones said under corss examination that Cr Penhalluriack had denigrated him personally and that had made him angry.
After three days at the back of the court-room taking notes, Cr Penhalluriack left without, he said, the resolution he had hoped for. “I was hoping to get finality by the (council) election,” he said. “When a leopard dies it leaves its skin, but when a man dies he leaves his reputation.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Sporting chance urged
The demise of the Alma Sports Club, a non-profit community club, open to all, will see the loss of the only sporting facility or potential park area left in the far northwest precinct of Glen Eira. It must be retained as open space.
This precinct is experiencing a significant increase in population due to rezoning. This is the only opportunity for Glen Eira Council to secure the site for the community.
Retention of the site as council or Crown land is essential for the liveability of this part of Glen Eira. It is reputed to have the lowest ration of open space and recreational area of any of Melbourne’s municipalities.
The council claims it has no money to buy the site and does not rescue “private” clubs. But council squandered our city’s reserves, squandered our city’s ability to borrow more money, all on GESAC.
Yet the residents of this precinct are lumped with paying the greater proportion of the GESAC debt because they pay higher rates!
Dr David Dolan
++++++++++++++++++
I live around the corner from the Alma Sports Club and it would be a great pity to see it replaced by apartments.
I know an energetic guy tried to get a cabaret club started there recently but was denied a permit by the council.
A par with a few tennis courts and a café would be ideal. The site needs someone who can reach out to young families in the area, offer lessons and childcare. But if that is all too hard, give us a park.
Glen Eira Debates 
August 21, 2012 at 9:42 AM
Isnt interesting that the leader has become less proc council. Do they see the writing on the wall. Isnt this similar to the usual Murdoch press stance of always backing the winner eg changing to support New Labor in Britain and against John Howard in Australia. Shame they didnt get the chance to be anti MRC
August 21, 2012 at 9:58 AM
It’s still a useless rag when they can’t even get the figures right. Their story reckons that council’s only spent $171000 on Frank. Try adding another $100000 which the toffs have admitted to and then you’d get proper journalism.
August 21, 2012 at 9:48 AM
There’s some irony in the fact that the Leader has included letters about the Alma Club and a story on the VCAT case in the same edition. Council does not seem to have any problem in spending an unbudgeted half a million in the attempt to rid itself of a councillor who is a “nuisance”. But they are loath to add to open space and garner a windfall in prized land when the opportunity presents itself. Priorities are all askew here.
August 21, 2012 at 3:53 PM
Maybe Ajax can come in with the money and buy it.
They tried that with Princess Park.
August 21, 2012 at 7:38 PM
Jeez I hope they do come up with the mullah – at least the open space would be preserved and the $100m monster wouldn’t eventuate.
Dunno where you’re coming from with the “they tried it at Princess Park” comment. I read the various substandard reports prepared by Council and basically they boil down to yet another high handed irrational and unreasonable decision by Burke which the gang tried really hard to unsuccessfully cover up.
August 21, 2012 at 10:12 AM
Just read the Council Minutes from last week. Glen Eira instead of trying to belittle a Senior Officer over a matter he is barely involved in, what about a report on the important work he does for many of the marginalised in our Community . What about reference to Item 9-10 in Council Minutes dealing with Homelessness.That’s what Peter Jones MBA does in our Community. You and your mate should be ashamed.
August 21, 2012 at 11:14 AM
Hey Anon…is your name Peter?
August 21, 2012 at 3:39 PM
Funny how most successful business people do not have an MBA. They have natural talent. People like Mr. Jones need to learn what to do and they pay big money for the course. Maybe they should include in the MBA a few sessions on how to deal with determined and robust people. Lucky he doesn’t run a real business he wouldn’t have many customers left if he treated them like he has Frank.
August 21, 2012 at 3:43 PM
Come off it Noel. I am sure Peter Jones is very well paid. Dealing with homeless people is part of his well paid job. The staff should be ashamed for being soft. I bet his car is never in the carpark after dark.
August 21, 2012 at 4:28 PM
I’ve read the report and the most telling line is the old standard excuse that this council uses again and again – not our responsibility! It’s all up to the State and Federal governments. With this attitude I’d think that Jones has very little to do. All he has to produce is the same old cliches and reports that are done by everyone else except Glen Eira. For that he’s earning heaps.
August 21, 2012 at 4:36 PM
Yep, I have read the report on the homelessness in Glen Eira – it basically says that, so far as is known, there isn’t much so we won’t do anything.
As for belittling a Senior Officer (MBA) over a matter he is barely involved in – what a crock of sh*t. Barely involved in, yeah for sure, Jones is one of the three witnesses in the Penhalluriack VCAT hearing (Burke and Newton being the other two) – that signifies more than a bare involvement.
Jones’s testimony is published on the web (VCAT site) for all to see and evaluate.
Jones’s allegation relates to a meeting of Councillors, at which his allegations of against Penhalluriack are discussed. Jones, by his own testimony, attended the meeting as both the CEO delegate (Newton’s request) and minute taker (Esakoff”s request) – when asked a direct and legitimated question related to his allegations he did not answer and as a result was called a dumb mute (no expletive was added although it should have been) and he was angry. Now that’s certainly worth spending over $270K of ratepayers funds on!!!!!. Despite obviously being briefed by Council’s lawyers, Jones fluffed all questions put to him while on the stand – definitely not a stellar performance.
August 21, 2012 at 6:16 PM
There was no homeless in Glen Eira until Hyams forced out Penhalluriack’s tennants!
August 21, 2012 at 8:10 PM
Hey Noel (a.k.a. Anon 3) since you have repeatedly requested residents to get over it ’cause the constant questioning of Council is getting boring, I wonder if you have thought of seeking professional help. In your blind fath, it may be boring to you but then again you keep coming back and you have yet to recognise that you are indisputably (in the terms of the bloggers on this site) in the minority (Score card – bloggers 260K+, Noel 100) – my man that spells addiction. Professional help is available, avail yourself of it.
August 21, 2012 at 1:06 PM
Actually the Homelessness funding is State government funding, tied very strictly to providing specified homelessness services.
So, what exactly is Peter Jones MBA doing for the community?
August 21, 2012 at 4:39 PM
Only what he is paid more than most of . Don’t forget he earns almost$100 every hour at least! Hardly a charity worker and he usually has a noce new shiny car to go home in having parked all dy for nothing in the council car park whoile we gra[p[le with [paying public transport fares or high parking fees.
August 21, 2012 at 5:23 PM
Like to know which car he has so I can check to see if it is still in the carpark after hours. I doubt it. Public servants are the bullies. They threaten residents and shopkeepers all the time. I bet he is one of the benificiaries of the defined benefits super scheme that is costing ratepayers a fortune.
August 21, 2012 at 10:29 PM
Rather than leaving questions unanswered, the abrupt halt to the VCAT hearing left *all* allegations unsubstantiated. And justice delayed, is justice denied.
I don’t wish to join the head-kicking of Peter Jones, at least on the basis of his appearance at VCAT. Allegations once made should be taken seriously and dealt with professionally and the process should be followed. The matters relied upon by Council in making its allegations have to be tested, the context properly explored, and interpretation attached. Anything that involves a test of reasonableness I don’t think belongs in VCAT, as VCAT isn’t constituted or incented to be reasonable. However the VCAT juggernaut will roll on, providing a decent living to many involved. Peter can go back to telling the public that it is a statutory requirement that the Council Plan be finalised by June 30 2012. [A lie BTW.]
There are only 4 matters being examined by VCAT AFAIK. These concern conduct in relation to the CEO and Peter Jones; a failure to comply with a dubious Council resolution in 2011; conduct related to the mulch heap; and a private dispute concerning a laneway. That’s what Council has decided $300K+ of our money on, and a better investment apparently than providing more open space. In each case Council allegates the conduct to be a breach of multiple clauses of the Councillor Code of Conduct and of the Local Government Act.
One trouble with Council’s behaviour is that it routinely breaches the Act, its Local Law and the Councillor Code of Conduct. Its a problem with Law in general—write too many of them and everybody is in breach of something. That’s why the current proceedings resemble a witchhunt—especially when Council has shown no interest in pursuing other councillors for their breaches. If you read through the Walsh, Whelan, and Wolf reports (which Council wasn’t keen for ratepayers to see), you can see how far they have strayed from some pretty basic principles.
If you read 5.11 of CCC its hard to see how all Council staff could be said to act impartially, or to act with integrity, or to be accountable for results, or to provide responsive service. I’ve seen the CEO throw a hissy fit at a Council meeting in response to questions. Paul Burke, unchecked by then-Mayor Esakoff, showed what he no doubt considers due respect by labelling a councillor question “mischievious”. Peter Jones is prepared to misrepresent publicly the provisions of LGA covering the preparation of the Council Plan. Anyway that’s for the CEO and Councillors to grapple with, since we, the public, have no say other than once every 4 years about how we are governed.
Ironically despite the number of times Melbourne 2030 gets referred to in planning matters, what it actually says has mostly been forgotten or ignored. As Council has revealed, it has misused most of the money collected through Open Space contributions from developers in its Housing Diversity areas, spending it well away from the areas of highest population density. It can do that because of a loophole in the Planning and Environment Act. Its behaviour does however directly contradict the principles contained in M2030. The Alma Club non-decision is just one more example.
August 21, 2012 at 11:01 PM
I always look forward to your comments Reprobate because I find them knowledgeable and balanced. On this occasion though, I think you are being far too charitable to Mr Jones. His testimony shows that (1) he does not answer questions when called upon to do so as his job would demand and (2) as a minute taker he failed to take minutes of a meeting that went on for close to an hour. This is not only a failure to perform his duty, but I suspect a failure to meet the requirements of the Public Records Act. None of this should surprise anyone though since Jones is beholden to Newton for his very job. It is the CEO who hires and fires his staff – not councillors. Whether Jones’ instructions to not utter a word came from Newton or Esakoff is irrelevant since I see these two individuals as working in unison.
Your comments regarding VCAT are probably correct. Unfortunately as the current law stands there really is no other option. The Councillor Conduct Panels are to my mind a travesty of justice. They feature MAV people, are secret, and do not allow legal representation. When a councillor is therefore sent to a conduct panel as Penhalluriack has been he is opposed by the full legal resources that a council cares to throw at him and without the benefit of his own legal representation. If I were in Penhalluriack’s shoes I would have done exactly the same thing. Let everything be out in the open and let justice be equitable. If council can spend so much on lawyers then the same must be granted to Penhalluriack. Lawyers as we’ve seen can also cross examine and question for hours upon hours if necessary. That’s better than a secret conduct panel where allegations remain secret and councils have even refused to put into the public domain the findings of such panels. This way everyone will get the chance to judge the veracity, quality, and transgressions (if any) for themselves. Newton cannot hide and neither can his lackeys. That to me is a far better system of justice.
All council can do now is what they’re doing – claiming that it’s all Penhalluriack’s fault. I lay the blame squarely at the feet of those who decided to venture down this path without any consideration as to what it will cost and without challenging the pathetically weak case that seems to have been mounted against Penhalluriack. Inept and incompetent are the most accurate words I can assign to those councillors who voted for this and to those administrators who have no regard for the public purse.
August 22, 2012 at 8:40 PM
What shame it is that the gormless editorial staff on the Leader Newspapers have decided that Newton’s advertising dollar is worth more than editorial integrity. No only have they sold out, they have done so for a pittance. Probably because they have have falled to realise that if Newton doesn’t place the ads in the local his only other option is the self published Glen Eira News or the coupon mag distributed at the supermarket.