Glen Eira Debates

‘Bullying’ forces CEO to take leave

6th January 2010

LOCKYER Valley local government has been thrown into turmoil after council chief executive officer Colin O’Connor took three months sick leave after claiming the mayor was a bully. It is believed Mr O’Connor is currently on paid sick leave on an annual
salary approaching $250,000.

Gatton resident Bob Fowke, 71, said Mr O’Connor had the support of a majority four-member faction of councillors. Mr Fowke worked in local government for 35 years and has attended almost every meeting of the Lockyer Valley Regional Council since the government amalgamations in March, 2008.

He said he was present at the council meeting on September 23 when Mr O’Connor started distributing an unsigned letter accusing Mayor Steve Jones of bullying staff. Mr Fowke said the situation was quite the opposite as the faction of four councillors always used their votes to carry out Mr O’Connor’s wishes.

The faction, which has previously been highlighted by Mayor Jones, includes councillors Jim McDonald, Janice Holstein, Tanya Milligan and Graham Moon. Mr Fowke said the manipulation was blatantly obvious in chambers.

“(Mr O’Connor) shakes his head, nods his head, and smiles when he wants them to do something,” he said. “It is total manipulation in my book and he’s taken stress leave because people are waking up to it.”

Mr Fowke said his fellow ratepayers were disgusted council was being run by the only non-elected member, Mr O’Connor. “The CEO is virtually running the council and the councillors haven’t got a hell of a lot of say.”

On November 27, Mr O’Connor sent an email to staff informing them that his doctor had ordered him to take three months “sick” leave. He said in the letter he felt a “deep sense of failure” for not being able to “protect” staff from the mayor. On the same day,
Mr O’Connor lodged a Workplace Health and Safety claim for compensation. Mr Fowke said the scandal had halted progress of the council.

“Because the mayor keeps asking questions, he’s labelled a bully,” he said. “But these questions need to be asked, need to be addressed and these problems need to be solved. “Council needs to move forward. “I would like to see the council open up the book as it is closed by the faction at the moment. “So much is hidden from the ratepayer and it’s absolutely hindering good decision-making.”

One example of the faction’s power was highlighted after Mr O’Connor ordered the unauthorised clearing of a fauna sanctuary at Lake Apex in April. The council is facing a $165,000 fine for tampering with an animal breeding place without approval. Mayor Steve Jones wanted an independent body to investigate the incident. However, the faction voted that Mr O’Connor would compile the report on his own decision.

(http://www.gattonstar.com.au/story/2010/01/06/bullying-forces-ceo-to-sick-leave/)

Turmoil as councillors sue over bullying

Updated Wed Sep 15, 2010 11:43am
AEST

Peter Watson is calling for intervention after more councillors sue the city over bullying (ABC News). The Member for Albany Peter Watson has described the local council as the laughing stock of Western Australia. Two Albany councillors are threatening to sue the city after an independent investigation rejected allegations they had been involved in bullying.

Councillors Roley Paver and Jill Bostock are now claiming more than $500,000 in damages. The action comes after the dismissal of the city’s former chief executive, Paul Richards, who claimed he was bullied by councillors. Last month, the Local Government Standards panel found there was no evidence of bullying of Mr Richards who received a $250,000 payout when he left the
council. Mr Watson says the council is an embarrassment to the city and the Minister for Local Government John Castrilli is not doing anything about it.

“We’ve got a culture there at the City of Albany which is the laughing stock of Western Australia and if the Minister can’t see that, maybe he should be looking after a different portfolio and put someone into his portfolio of Local Government that’s got a bit of grunt,” he said.

Mr Watson says there must be intervention. “We have councillors suing the council, we have a CEO who’s been sacked who is suing the council, we had the previous CEO sue the council,” he said. “Obviously, there’s something wrong there and the longer the Minister sits on his hands, the worse it’s going to get.”

Mr Castrilli has declined to comment on the matter. Mr Watson says he will raise it in parliament at the next sitting.

(http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/08/25/2992687.htm)

Sadly, we are becoming increasingly accustomed to the games that this administration (and some councillors) insist on playing at the expense of proper governance and adherence to council’s own policies. The latest example involves public questions that have been ‘taken on notice’. A few facts first.

Council’s Local Law states that questions may be taken on notice and that responses “shall be given within a reasonable time (usually in less than ten working days).” Most people would assume that this means more than simply a letter of response to the questioner. Then there is also this: “Where an answer is given later in writing, the question shall be resubmitted to the meeting at which the answer is available and both the question and the answer shall be recorded in the minutes of that meeting.”

At the May 17^th Council meeting a series of questions from Mr. Varvodic was taken on notice. Since then we have had another council meeting and no response to these questions has been forthcoming. If included in the next council meeting minutes, that will make it 6 weeks for a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer to the vast majority of these questions.

Readers will remember that the issue of ‘vexatious questions’ has previously come up under Lipshutz’s role on the Local Laws Committee. We simply ask:

• Is the tardy non answering and non publication of answers merely a de facto introduction of this ‘policy’ since it would appear to achieve the same outcome?
• Why should it take at least 3 council meetings to publish responses?
• Is this a tactic that will now be continually employed whenever ‘uncomfortable’ public questions are asked by ratepayers?
• Surely the combined intellectual powers of Newton, Burke, Lipshutz and Hyams can do better than this silly stalling game?

The following facts, which have been noted previously, need to be reiterated –

1. The draft budget was amended by council resolution

2. No new ‘version’ of the amended budget and Strategic Resource Plan has been published

3. Residents have put in submissions based on a document which technically no longer exists or has any legal status. It has been superceded.

4. Tonight’s meeting is thus irrelevant since whatever people have written, or will say, is not based on what they could say if they were privy to the new budget.

QUESTIONS:

• Why haven’t the new budget and Strategic Resource Plan been made public?
• Why haven’t councillors insisted that it be public?
• Why is the public being subjected to the farce of commenting on something that no longer exists?
• What does this say about governance at Glen Eira City Council?

Newton’s name first appeared officially in the Commissioners’ report. He was listed as ‘council officer’ on the finance committee. Council minutes indicate that in 1997-8 his official job title was Director, Corporate Services in charge of Business Planning, Public Relations, Finance, Corporate Assets, Risk Management, Service Centre, Human Resources, and Business Development – a finger in all the most important pies! But what we want to concentrate on are some very, very interesting agenda items bearing his name. All involve disharmony, and the publication of internal documents that we consider totally unethical. Further, each publication has had the potential to discredit various individuals, whom we assume, may have been likely critics or opponents. Sadly, there appears to be a very long list of ‘opponents’. More significantly, a distinct and consistent pattern of behaviour, tactics and overall strategy can be traced back to these early times. They are still evident today.

Alan Grossbard, the first mayor of Glen Eira, appears to be one of these early ‘casualities’. Whatever one’s opinion may be of Mr. Grossbard, he is certainly well credentialed. The Glen Eira Annual Report of 1997/8 cites his qualifications as: B.Sc., B. Ed., Dip. Ac., MBA. MACE; MAIE, MPRIA, MGAA. We’re also told that Grossbard ‘has a strong background in business management, finance and corporate relations and is employed as one of the top executives in a major Australian company’. In other words, not a slouch when it comes to running a business. So what happened? Why were items published that had no right to be in the public domain and what was the objective? We’re referring of course to the Mayoral Gold Chain affair. Here are the facts:

• The minutes of 23^rd June 1997 have Newton writing “The Mayor has proposed additional expenditures for Mayoral regalia and civic function to be included in the 1997-98 Budget”. (Please note the syntax – making it appear as if the proposal actually originated from the Mayor, who happened to be Grossbard) and the total listed for chains,  brooches and links was $29,500
• There was of course a public furore over this and various articles in the Southern Cross regarding ‘communication rifts’ (16^th July 1997); the chain affair (16^th July 1997) and an advertising conflict of interest (16^th September, 1998). A special meeting was called to refute all these newspaper claims.
• Investigation of all the above was delayed until 1998 and after the first Municipal Inspector’s report came in.

The important bit however IS THE PUBLICATION IN THE AGENDA of a Memorandum written by Grossbard and some of his personal correspondence to councillors and the CEO. The Southern Cross claimed that Grossbard had told them that ‘staff, other than departmental directors, had to report all conversations with councillors’ to the CEO. He further was alleged to have said that ‘The officers are afraid to give answers. It’s a scare syndrome’.  So how best to haul Grossbard over the coals? Perhaps publish what could be seen as denigrating to Grossbard himself?

Well lo and behold, we get exactly that! A memorandum written by Grossbard (10^th June 1997) to councillors and the CEO. In this memorandum Grossbard states “I would like to strongly recommend the following items be adopted in the 1997/8 budget’. There is then the itemised list of goods and costs, totalling $29,500.

In letter after letter to the newspapers, Grossbard claims that he was given the task of discovering the costs of such paraphernalia and that his memo was in response to this task. Further, that when the issue came up at council he was overseas and that the item ‘should not have been placed on the council’s agenda’. He further said that “I was asked by Council to find out what expense would be incurred if we were to commission collarette pieces for use as the City’s Mayoral Regalia. From the quotes I obtained I submitted the costs to Council. Unfortunately I was not in attendance at the Council’s meeting to stop the quotes being regarded as a proposal rather than general information for consideration only.” (21st July, 1997).

Whatever the rights or wrongs of this issue, two things are absolutely clear:

• The publication of internal correspondence – but only when it suits. This trend still continues.
• Governance issues, disharmony and lack of trust involving councillors and administration go way, way back and still continue – ie latest Municipal Inspector’s report.
• The attempted discrediting of critics and opponents via the publication of such documents. Again this practise is still rife.
• Selective editing that fails to give full context.

Can a leopard really change its spots? It doesn’t appear so. We’ve recently learnt that Andrew Newton has made allegations of bullying against Penhalluriack. This is now being ‘investigated’ by a council hired lawyer – and probably at great expense to ratepayers. As far as we understand this is simply an ‘informal’ process to determine the validity or otherwise of the allegations.

What is immediately apparent is that such tactics are not new to Andrew Newton. He has tried this tack before as noted in the Whelan Report. We quote:

“The letter referred to a report which the CEO presented to Council following a trip by three Councillors (including Grossbard and Erlich) to the Council’s sister city, Ogaki in Japan. It stated, in essence, that the administration had submitted a report to the Council about the trip which was inaccurate and denied them natural justice, and that they would be issuing a press release calling for the dismissal of the CEO, Andrew Newton.

The Council sought legal advice from Macquarie Lawyers and Strategists and was advised on 1 July 2002 that the “… Council has breached its statutory obligation to provide a working environment that is without risk to the CEO”.  

The legal advice proposed four recommendations, including:-

• • adopting a Code of Conduct for Councillors in the form of a Local Law with sanctions; and
• • providing a process for resolving disputes between the Council and the CEO.

Further, it stated that:-

“I am satisfied that the sending of the memoranda and the prior behaviour of Cr Grossbard as detailed in the CEO’s report constitutes conduct which challenges the CEO’s work environment which should otherwise be free of preventable harassment. Unless a remedy is found ……. it is likely that Council will remain in breach of its statutory obligations towards the CEO”. “

So here we go again. The tactics remain identical. When questioned, it appears that Mr. Newton brings out the big guns – ie. claims of intimidation, harassment, and bullying. So who is this Andrew Newton? What drives him? What motivates him? Why does intrigue and controversy dog his every move? Why from the time he set foot in Glen Eira has there been division, mistrust, and open hostility? We can lay the blame at various councillors – perhaps! We can also blame ourselves for electing dummies. But is this the whole story? We’ve asked before, what role has Andrew Newton played in the Glen Eira dramas of the past 13 years? What other individual in the entire state has been embroiled in three formal Municipal Investigations, and god knows how many other ‘please explain’ enquiries?

The central question is: how does he operate? What are the tactics that he has possibly used in these 13 years to silence critics or to discredit them? Have these all been ethical? legal? All we have to do is look at certain sections of the Whelan Report to note several things:

• Newton has employed the ‘safe workplace’ strategy to rid himself of certain councillors; this ploy we assume, has also succeeded in putting the fear of god into other councillors
• He has published information that has no right to be in the public domain
• He didn’t perform his duty of warning councillors and previous CEOs when he should have

Today, we have the same tactics being played out. This time it is directed at Penhalluriack – maybe because Penhalluriack has the temerity to actually be doing his job and asking what constitute uncomfortable questions of the CEO? What residents need to consider carefully, is whether this is the man they want to continue at the helm of the Glen Eira administration. How much is he costing us and how much will he cost us in the future? What impact will this new ‘investigation’ have on the reputation of this Council and its councillors?

WATCH THIS SPACE – MORE TO FOLLOW!