Councillor Performance

Archived Posts from this Category

October 22, 2011

Only A Resolution Away!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Service Performance
[10] Comments

From the Gold Coast Council Meeting of 8th August, 2011.

13.9 CENSORING OR INTERVENING WITH COUNCILLORS MAIL

LG211/-/-

RESOLUTION G11.0808.025 Moved Cr Clarke Seconded Cr Young

That the Memorandum be deemed non confidential except for those parts deemed by the Chief Executive Officer to remain confidential in accordance with sections 171(3) and 200(9) of the Local Government Act 2009.

Council notes with concern the allegations published in the local media last Thursday in regard to the intervention of e-mails being received by Councillors (including generic, divisional office email accounts) and resolves that under no circumstances can the Chief Executive Officer or any administrative staff, intervene or censor any mail, be it electronic or standard, for Councillors, as from today, with the exception of any such action or intervention that is specifically requested by an aggrieved or concerned Councillor and that the CEO report back on the appropriate process for this to occur.

That the CEO report back on the process to identify junk mail, “MIMEsweeper” and spam mail within programming software in Councillors’ computers and how to enhance such programs to allow Councillors to determine when and how to deal with offensive emails and that the current spam filters stay in place.

That all policies appropriate to the receipt and distribution of electronic mail and posted mail to and from the Mayor and Councillors be revised to reflect the above policy position. “

Vote was carried eleven (11) to four (4).

October 21, 2011

Shambolic, Inept & Inexcusable!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance, Miscellaneous
[19] Comments

Our urging for the publication of the October 4^thSpecial Committee Meeting Minutes has paid off. They are now available on Council’s website. Here is the important parts of these pseudo minutes –

PRESENTATION OF CONFIDENTIAL ITEMS

Crs Hyams/Lipshutz

That the meeting be now closed to members of the public under Section 89(2) (a) ‘personnel’ and (d) contractual’ of the Local Government Act 1989 which relates to the review of the performance of the Chief Executive Officer

The Mayor called for a vote on the Motion. Five Councillors voted and three Councillors declined to vote.

The Mayor again called for a vote on the Motion. Five Councillors voted and three Councillors declined to vote.

DIVISION

Cr
Esakoff called for a Division on the voting of the Motion.

FOR AGAINST

Cr Esakoff Cr Forge

Cr Hyams

Cr Lipshutz

Cr Lobo

Cr Magee

Cr Pilling

Cr Tang

On the basis of the Division the Chairperson declared the Motion CARRIED.

We are utterly speechless at the total shambles that these minutes reveal – from both councillors and from whoever is responsible for the taking and dissemination of these minutes. Again, we’ll go through this in chronological order –

The motion was moved in open council. Hence IT IS NOT PART OF THE CONFIDENTIAL ITEMS as stated!
Councillors are legally bound to vote – they CANNOT abstain.
Esakoff again does not know correct procedure. She cannot call for a Division until the voting has been recorded. No vote is recorded in these minutes.

COMMENT

This is getting worse and worse. We have a situation where the Chair does not seem to know the rules (even though she’s been mayor 3 times) and councillors who also do not know what is legally expected of them. As for the minute taker, perhaps he should be given as birthday present the State version of Standing Orders & Meeting Procedures?

October 20, 2011

Vale Democracy, Accountability – Hail Secrecy!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance
[9] Comments

Tonight’s Special Committee Meeting continued the tradition of secrecy within Glen Eira council. After five minutes the gallery was cleared for in camera discussions on the following agenda items – which finally made it onto council’s website this afternoon. (Please note that the minutes of the first meeting are still wafting about but not in the public domain!)

This time round, the agenda items have really outdone themselves – they read:

“That the meeting be now closed to members of the public under Section 89(2) of the Local Government Act 1989 in order to consider any confidential business.

6.1 under s89 (2) (a) ‘personnel’ and (d) ‘contractual’ of the Local Government Act which relates to the review of the performance of the Chief Executive Officer.

6.2 under s89 (2) (f) ‘legal advice’ which relates to Right of Reply.

6.3 under s89 (2) (f) ‘legal advice’ in order to consider a Council resolution.

6.4 under s89 (2) (f) ‘legal advice’ in order to consider seeking further legal advice.

6.5 under s89 (2) (a) ‘personnel’ in order to consider OH&S matters.”

Some very strange goings on here. For example:

CEO (re)appointment is integrally linked to the Performance Appraisal. These should not be linked and we hazard a guess that no other council does link the 2 issues.
OH& S has again reared its ugly head and is playing a pivotal role in the appointment process since we assume this relates to Newton’s bullying claims and the exclusion of Penhalluriack.
Of further concern is the multiple ‘legal advice’ items. Are they ‘separate matters’ or related? Are ratepayers therefore looking at another possible $15,000 gifted to lawyers?
The farce is even further accentuated with the ‘legal advice in order to consider seeking further legal advice’. This line could have come straight out of Monty Python for its sheer anarchic insanity. Oh to be a lawyer in the employ of Glen
Eira City Council – one is laughing all the way to the bank!
Seems like they can’t even decide if a Council resolution is legal or not! Surely this should have been nutted out BEFORE the resolution was put and carried? We again wonder if this item is related to the legality of the first Special Committee and
hence the need to revoke the delegation powers and substitute them with the current one? As Lipshutz and Hyams keep telling us – ‘a little housekeeping’ – except that the costs keep adding up for ratepayers!
And one little issue that again won’t be made public – are any of these legal eagles part of Maddocks perhaps? Will Tang actually deign to declare a (potential) conflict of interest? We remind folks that in the past he has declared a conflict of interest on a Monash matter since he is merely one out of 40,000 students who attended the university! Should we expect consistency though?
Finally, facts suggest that dealing with Newton becomes a very, very expensive business. We still don’t know how much the 2005 schemozzle cost ratepayers, and the figure for 2009 is roughly $40,000. How much this current saga, with all the investigations of bullying, lawyers, and now more lawyers will eventually cost, is anyone’s guess.

Before we list the night’s events we believe it is worth pointing out that all motions were passed unanimously. One has to wonder at all these sudden ‘conversions’ when the vote at last week’s meeting to create this committee was 5 to 4! It’s good to see that public displays of ‘unity’ are valued far more highly perhaps than consistency, and dare we suggest, integrity! But as they say, a week’s a long time in politics.

The night’s events (in chronological order):

Motion to accept (non-public) minutes
Kerfuffle about apologies (Lipshutz absent). Tang played lawyer and brought up a ‘point of procedure’ and insisted that a formal motion be put to accept Lipshutz’s absence – after the meeting had again moved on. Esakoff realised her mistake and backtracked to this motion. Incidentally, dear readers, what is a ‘point of procedure’ – does it even exist? or did Tang really mean ‘point of order’? And are these councillors running so scared of legal retribution that they are determined to dot every ‘i’ and cross every ‘t’ – just in case?
Motion to move in camera. Gallery cleared. World record of less than 5 minutes!

October 20, 2011

To Phone Or Not To Phone….That Is The Question!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance
[10] Comments

What a sad, sad, state of affairs we appear to have come to in Glen Eira! And it’s not just for this last year either. Below is a comparative table of councillor telephone expenses for Glen Eira and 2 of our neighbouring councils. Kingston figures are for one quarter – hence they would need to be quadrupled to attain an approximation of the full year’s expenditure.

GLEN EIRA 1^st Dec.,2009 – 1^st Nov.2010			STONNINGTON (1 year to December 2010)		KINGSTON July-Sept. 2010
Penhalluriack		$146.-	Athanasopoulos	$1975.99	Staikos	$857.55
Whiteside (to30th July,2010)	$580.-		Chandler	$1616.38	Athanasopoulos	$489.96
Hyams	$140.-		Hannon	$678.64	Peulich	$907.94
Magee	$696.-		Hindle	$1731.97	Brownlees	$324.54
Esakoff	$69.-		Nicholls	$567.92	West	$324.54
Lipshutz	$32.-		O’Shea	$3202.68	Dundas	$446.12
Pilling	$223.-		Sehr	$1066.51	Bauer	$916.48
Lobo	$255.-		Smith	$4797.46	Ronke	$324.54
Tang	$729.-		Ullin	$2256.19	Shewan	$685.85
Forge (From 31^st August 2010)	$16.-

So what conclusions may be drawn from the above statistics? –

Are Glen Eira councillors doing their jobs? Maybe an investigation should be undertaken to determine why these councillors’ expenses are miniscule compared to their colleagues? It is incomprehensible that Lipshutz should only have a mobile phone bill of ~$30 per year (and the same for the previous year). Does this mean that no resident rings him? That councillors as a whole receive very few phone calls? That these aren’t answered?
Or is the truth that these councillors simply refuse to use council provided phones for fear of possible tracking devices? That they don’t want super sleuth officers to know whom they’ve been talking with, much less what they’ve been talking about? That the fear of god has been put into them following the phone business of the past?

Whatever the truth is, other councils just do not have this problem. When others are spending literally thousands and thousands on their mobile phones, with not a whimper from anyone, then Glen Eira stands out like a beacon. There are only two logical possibilities here – either councillors are not doing their jobs as representatives of the people, or they don’t like the possible surveillance that using council supplied phones might imply. We have been told numerous times that various councillors have directed residents not to ring them on their council phones, nor to email them on council email accounts. Why? If there is trust, respect, and a sound working relationship, then there wouldn’t be the need to hide conversations and correspondence.

It’s just a great pity then that when a public question on this issue of surveillance was raised at the last council meeting and responses invited from each councillor (admittedly on emails), all but Penhalluriack sat there in silence. Silence is consent councillors! And look where that’s got us!

October 15, 2011

Who Is Chip, Chip, Chipping Away?

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance
[14] Comments

Mulch ado about council’s gardening service

Jason Dowling

October 15, 2011

A south-eastern council is facing probity investigations, including for a potential conflict of interest where a councillor who owns a hardware store that sells garden mulch pushed the council to close its free mulch service for residents for health reasons.

Glen Eira Council is believed to be under investigation by the Ombudsman’s office and Cr Frank Penhalluriack faces a separate investigation by the local government inspectorate over his push to close the mulch facility.

Cr Penhalluriack was also investigated by the council earlier this year over allegations he bullied the council’s chief executive, Andrew Newton.
Cr Penhalluriack denies he has a conflict of interest on the mulch issue or bullied the chief executive. The local government inspectorate has confirmed it is investigating Cr Penhalluriack and the Ombudsman’s office refused to comment.

The council voted in April to remove its Glen Huntly Park mulch facility.

In 2010, Cr Penhalluriack had requested an external consultant be employed to undertake an assessment of the health risks associated with the free mulch service.

The report found ”it is likely workers and mulch users are potentially exposed to bacteria (e.g. legionella) and fungi as a result of handling the mulch material”, and made six recommendations to manage the risk, five of which the council said it had implemented.

Separate advice to the council for the state Health Department said ”there is no evidence to suggest woodchips have ever been the source of legionella disease and a person would be very unlikely to contract legionnaires’ from handling woodchip mulch”.

Cr Penhalluriack told The Saturday Age he did not have a conflict of interest in pushing for the mulch facility to be closed, despite selling mulch from his Hawthorn Road hardware store.

”The mulch sales through Penhalluriack’s are 0.2 per cent of total sales,” he said, and had not increased since the free service had been closed.

He said safety concerns were the only reason he pushed to close the free mulch service.

”They have taken the mulch out, but the facility is still there, and the CEO has an obligation to act on a council resolution expeditiously.”

The Glen Eira council recently faced criticism for ignoring the advice of its own staff to heritage-protect a home owned the mayor, Margaret Esakoff.

. Cr Esakoff excused herself from voting on the issue.

The mayor said the Whistleblowers’ Protection Act prevented her from commenting on any possible Ombudsman’s investigation.

She said she was unable to comment in relation to bullying claims because of confidentiality provisions in the Local Government Act.

COMMENT: When government agencies such as the ombudsman and the municipal inspector are sent on total wild goose chases over something as inconsequential as a 0.2% councillor’s interest in the mulch business, versus concerns over potential health risks for workers and residents, then there is something drastically wrong with our system.

We keep asking the most basic questions:

Why is this story continually in the limelight? Is it really the most important thing that is happening in Glen Eira?
Who stands to gain the most by potentially discrediting Penhalluriack?
Why aren’t questions being asked as to why the mulch was put there in the first place? If so perfect to start with, then why the need to implement the ‘experts’ recommendations as a result of the scientific findings? What does this say about overall approaches to risk management?
Who tipped off the Age about the mulch story and why tip them off now, especially since the story is so old?
Who complained to the Municipal Inspectorate and/or the Ombudsman and why?
Is it coincidental that this story re-emerges in both the Leader and The Age when the CEO appointment process is starting?
Why the continual emphases on Penhalluriack when the council vote was 7 to 2 to close down the mulch shed? He certainly wasn’t the Lone Ranger on this.
Why does it take 4 months (and still counting) to table a council resolution for a Request for a Report on another potential location for the facility – whilst still keeping the $160,000 shell standing? It couldn’t be, could it, that finding another location would basically put the issue to bed for the community?
If conflict of interest is the current catchcry and flavour of the month, then let’s go whole hog and perhaps investigate every single Glen Eira councillor and administrator on a whole gamut of potential issues. Let’s turn over every rock and cranny and see what lies underneath. But please, enough with the mulch already!

October 12, 2011

It’s Kindergarten Playtime!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Kindergartens/Childcare
[4] Comments

9.4 CENTRE RD KINDERGARTEN

Two hands went up – Tang’s & Magee. Esakoff declared that Tang’s hand went up first.

TANG: Moved that council don’t sell the Centre Rd kindergarten and that council supports extension of kinda places as required by the universal access report. Also to ‘develop new consultation with the community’. Also asked for rreport on population projections ‘for next 10 years and broken down by suburbs’. Lipshutz seconded.

Stated that he moved the motion because he was ‘concerned’ that it was ‘contrary to the direction that council has taken’….(ie Packer Park, Nina Reserve where no council land was sold). ‘thought they were good decisions…(the expansion of car park at Bailey reserve was) ‘not as good a decision’…..(This suggests) ‘that council take a service that it already provides ….and put it onto public open space at Centenary Park…(.admitted that the open space wasn’t used well there & compared this to Packer Park and the need for) a’ 50 year vision’. (Council has made this mistake before and he doesn’t want to make it now). Doesn’t think ‘the report is strategic…….is basically ignoring the policy position that council has taken….(Early years plan considered population and kindas, plus childcare) ‘and adopted an action plan’ to 2013. (If council is now considering a new plan then that’s okay or to cater for highest need that’s also okay) ‘I don’t think this proposal does any of those…..this proposal looks at an area of open public space….let’s put money into it…The results of community consultation would be almost overwhelming in favour of a new kindergarten (but if you asked any area if they wanted a new kindergarten you’d also get such positive results) ….’but I don’t think that’s a good reason’ (to support this)….(Concern is) ‘lack of strategic support for the project’. Urged councillors to ‘consider this in the light of recently adopted and supported plans’…

LIPSHUTZ: Supported Tang and claimed that there is a need for plans ‘you don’t simply go out pick a site and plot something there….what you do is you have to have a plan and work out where the need lies…..(council has got a plan and this) ‘demonstrated very clearly that McKinnon….were the areas that needed kindergartens….(if you ask people about kindergartens anywhere they would always say yes they want it in their area)….’that’s not the reason why you do it….you do it because there’s a need for it….(question is planning for the future and maybe Centre rd won’t be appropriate) ‘but that’s in the future’….right now we do have a plan that says McKinnon Carnegie’ (is most important)…(Argument about open space not being used so much. the answer is to) ‘develop it so it can be used….you’re going to have a much smaller kindergarten and the need is not there…..we need money (in lots of areas)…you can’t simply come along and say dot dot dot and put kindergartens there….that’s not our responsibility….try to enhance what we have got….

MAGEE: ‘I believe (this is an) opportunity to listen to your community…we don’t as a council identify projects very well….we’ve got in our city 1501 kindergarten places….(and 12 vacancies)….1500 people moving into melbourne every week….we could very easily be in a position in 12 months with 30, 40,50, 60 kids not being (allocated a place)….East Bentleigh is probably your entry point (to getting into Glen Eira because of housing costs)…we have an enormous amount of growth (2 primary schools and one has now 600 kids compared to 7 years ago when it had 400. Explained the history of the park and how it was originally part of Moorabbin and when the amalgamation came plans were shelved) ‘that land is still sitting vacant, that land is still sitting waiting’….’Centre Rd kindergarten is on a very busy road (with 6 car parking spots and to pikc up kids have to walk 300 metres. As councillors not just getting reports and ‘saying that’s our policy…(or saying) ‘at the moment the need is McKinnon. Of course the need is McKinnon…(but ten years ago it probably wasn’t)…’we need to have vision to look forward….we can’t just say at the moment there is 12 vacancies (and we’re doing well)…’we’re not doing well’….I would like to see 50 vacancies or a 100 vacancies…(not good enough for someone to stand up and say it’s not needed. 6 years ago it wasn’t needed but now it is)….‘we need to plan for childcare in the city of Glen eira…and we don’t have one (plan)…’we have no long term strategic plan’…..somone has to stand up and start saying (that)….(should be looking at) ‘where are we going to be in 5 years, where are we going to be in 10 years’….(to say it’s not needed, etc is just wrng) ‘and shows no forethought….we need to have visions…and we need to stand up and say so’.

PILLING: Supported Magee and stated that as councillors they needed to have ‘vision’ and support what the community needs.’there’s a growing need’, taken about 8 or 9 months to get to council….whole lot of resistance, I understand….’take a proactive role in representing our community….there are a lot of needs …

HYAMS: Closing centre rd and moving to Centenary Park, then council ‘would be getting a better site arguably….and $300,000 to $400,000…..could be 16 more places than we have now….Centre Rd (is registered for 25 kids, but can be developed since the playground area is large, so to move would be to) move it to an area that has fewer places….need to sell council property and take public open space….(Spoke about kinda in Brady Rd so this would be)’duplicating’ (services)….’put one where there isn’t one’…’will run out, run low on cash reserves…so another major capital works (would be put on hold)…Crs Magee and Pilling have disparaged process and I think (process is ‘quite important’…(mentioned the Auditor general’s report about capital works and how well Glen Eira rated….’there’s no point in planning ahead if we’re just gong to introduce these wildcat works…really what is the point of doing a strategic resource plan….the budget…if we decide we don’t need the supporting evidence at all…there are right ways of doing things and there are wrong ways of doing things…the right way of doing things is the way we have been doing it….doing it like this just sets a very dangerous precedent….where any councillor who decides they want any (thing will start pushing for it)…‘without any supporting evidence at all’….I would be amazed if anyone who knows anything about governments would suggest that this is the way to go about it’. MAGEE INTERJECTED HERE SAYING THAT ‘LIVING THERE FOR 25 YEARS IS ENOUGH…… Esakoff ‘Thank you Cr. Magee’.

PENHALLURIACK: Unfortunate ‘that we didn’t have the alternative motion to debate….you chose Cr. Tang. HYAMS INTERJECTED WITH A POINT OF ORDER – ‘Madam mayor I think that’s an imputation on yourself. I saw Cr Tang’s hand (go up first). ESAKOFF: ‘I agree and uphold that point of order’ Claimed that Tang’s hand went up first. Penhalluriack tried to say something, but was cut short with ‘I’m speaking’ by Esakoff. Stated that Magee’s hand went up after Tang’s.

PENHALLURIACK; ‘no negative imputation was implied.I wasn’t arguing about whose hand went up first…..(said that if the alternative motion was given to councillors first then) ‘the debate would have been about real things…we don’t have a copy of (Tang’s motion) for a start….We have been given $500,000 ….for Julie coooper Pavilion (land behind has been car park for 50 years) ‘It would be ideal on economy of scale to build …adjointing the pavilion…cahngin rooms rooms,toilets,….

ESAKOFF: Agreed with Tang – ‘it is contrary to recent decisions….not within our strategic planning….alienation of public open space….pavilion will be redevloped …because of its functionality, or lack of…when redeveloped it is going to have a much larger footprint….it is going to take in that wasted space….we are going to be losing that space as part of the new footprint…. MAGEE INTERJECTED WITH ‘YOU HAVEN’T BEEN THERE HAVE YOU?’ Esakoff – ‘Excuse me Cr!’ I have been there. My word I have been there. More than once!’ MAGEE continued and started to say that Esakoff was talking about something that she….(probably didn’t know anything about?) Esakoff then told Magee to ‘stop interrupting’. Esakoff contiued – ’12 vacancies…expand mcKinnon which would provide us with a further 50 places….Centre rd has room for expansion…to make this change now would actually be a loss of places….Brady Rd is running and there may be some opportunity to expand there too…(agree with Hyams about Attonrey Generall’s’….in any decision making we need a solid business plan….we do not have it (for this)…we have to have that solid business plan and backup for those decisions that we make…and this does not have it.’

TANG; ‘I was speaking to the report in the agenda….I don’t think anything I’ve said was off what’s in the public agenda…I don’t know what his concerns are…sale of Centre rd kindergarten is listed on page 15……

PENAHALLURIACK: point of order in that Tang’s motion ‘didn’t mention any of this’…Esakoff asked on what grounds the point of order?
PENHALLURIACK: Tried to complete what he was saying but Esakoff said that this wasn’t a ‘right of reply’ and that she needed ‘to know the grounds of point of order’…..’Sorry, I’m listening to Cr. Tang explain where his comments are coming from and that is on the agenda item. I dismiss that point of order’.

TANG; Stated that he didn’t really understand Penhalluriack’s point of order but he’d clarify. Explained that last week he told 4 councillors that he wanted to move a motion after all councillors had got the report. That he received at 3.39 today the ‘printed alternate recommendation that was suggesting that council consult on the concept drawings’…’Everything I spoke to was contained in the report all councillors received at the same time…so i resent that criticism…Cr Pilling held a forum on the issue (of kindergartens)….issues were raised (about need in all sorts of suburbs)…’that was the community identifying issues …not looking at statistics…but looking at the raw belief and emotion….and I support that and that came through very strongly….there are emotions involved there are real people involved….and I don’t think it’s been demonstrated that those real people want to spend a million dollars in expanding a kindergarten on the Centenary Park site…(over MckInnon kinda, bentleigh hodgson) and I see no reason why we shouldn’t support that over this one….we should look at all of the community…and not just this one project….(council could have included this in all its plans)….’it didn’t. If council want to change that, that’s fine….we review policies all the time….we should have a vision (but dealing with one kindergarten isn’t a vision)….I agree that councillors should take a proactive role…..let’s be proactive and create a ten year plan using the projections….

MOTION CARRIED: Against – Magee, Pilling, Penhalluriack, Forge. Lipshutz, Hyams, Esakoff, Tang and Lobo voted for.

October 11, 2011

Council Meeting: More Secrecy

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance
[4] Comments

One outstanding feature of tonight’s Council Meeting was that Esakoff has been stocking up on her ‘assertiveness’ pills – or being fed them by certain individuals! Whenever Penhalluriack attempted to speak he was pulled up with ‘points of order’, or silenced by the Chair. He did however respond in length to one public question which we will comment upon in the days to come.

Other lowlights revealed in responses to the public questions were:

Heritage Panel report is claimed to have cost (only) $3000 and the lawyer for the day approx. $9000
Lawyers for the GESAC basketball fiasco have now cost over $5,000
Council submission to the Ministerial Planning Review will only be sent to the person who asked the public question of why this wasn’t freely available, given that residents had paid for this work!
One question was again deemed to be ‘harassment’ and excluded
Only Penhalluriack responded individually to a question on whether councillors agreed with having their emails intercepted, logged, viewed, by anonymous officers
Questions on the GESAC carpark and relocation of playground. Please note the financial report where we are now told that the RELOCATION OF PLAYGROUND WILL COST $391,000. This must be the most expensive playground in the world!
Esakoff succeeded in including an item of Urgent Business for the in camera discussion – without noting the reasons under the Local Government Act for their inclusion as ‘confidential’! Whilst ‘legal’ since the act only states that the minutes must record the reasons, it is again characteristic of the total disregard for the spirit of the law and the public by this council.

Other features of tonight included the total contradictory arguments presented by councillors from one item to the next. We will provide further details of these ‘debates’ in the coming days. Finally, we again note that the minutes of the Special Committee meeting have not made an appearance, nor have the requisite delegations, terms of reference, etc.

October 7, 2011

Records Of Assembly

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance
[17] Comments

There are definitely very strange goings on in the Assembly of Councillors. We highlight only a handful:

Meeting of 13^th September

Tang arrived nearly two hours late
Various officers’ reports which haven’t been tabled in council meetings
Fiddling with the previous minutes (again) – Hyams’ suggestions mostly. One especially interesting one concerns an ‘Occupational Health & Safety’ (bullying?) where the previous ‘record’ had simply stated that Penhalluriack left the room. Hyams’ wanted this altered to Penhalluriack declaring a conflict of interest and then leaving.
4 of the 6 officers walk out when an OH & S issue is being discussed. Later another one leaves. Bladder problems really strike at this point and the comings and goings are like a revolving door. Interestingly, no-one declared a conflict of interest!

2. Meeting of 20^th September

Tang’s there on time!
Again, when OH & S is discussed all but one officer leave the room. No declaration of conflict of interest.

3. Meeting of 27^th September

GESAC basketball discussions get an ‘update’ from Hyams
Forge mentions council ‘representation’ at a Department Planning Review Meeting
Again 4 officers walk out (2 remain) when the OH & S issue comes up. No conflict of interest declared.
Regulations for Local Government Act discussed. These regulations contain information on registers of interests and council and special committees.
There is then discussion on Special Committee and again OH & S

COMMENTS

After nearly 4 months, and a Request for a Report, nothing has yet appeared before council on the GESAC basketball allocations – yet the Warriors website continues to splash the council logo!!!

Council’s submission (reported in the Melbourne Bayside Leader) has yet to make it into the public domain and to be presented at a full council meeting. According to this newspaper it appears as if Esakoff signed off (as she did with the VEAC submission) rather than the CEO.

Obviously the Special Committee was discussed and set up in secret. No minutes as yet, no delegations as yet, and no terms of reference have been made public. Nor any reason provided as to why Penhalluriack is not a member of this committee!

OH & S features regularly. One strange sentence in these documents was the linking of OH& S AND ‘APPRAISAL matters’. Appraisal of what and whom, we ask? And why should these two items be linked?

Our conclusion – what a strange, strange council we have!

October 3, 2011

Move Over James Bond!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Service Performance
[6] Comments

What would any reasonable person conclude from the following sentence? –

“Council can assure you that emails to Councillors are treated in accordance with the wishes of individual Councillors”.

This sentence comes from the response to a public question (10^th April, 2006) and signed off by the then Mayor, David Feldman. It suggests that vetting, intercepting, archiving, of emails is done with the INDIVIDUAL CONSENT OF EACH COUNCILLOR. Reality, however might suggest something entirely different. We might even contemplate whether each and every councillor is aware that this happens, the full extent of the ‘surveillance’, and if they are aware, whether or not they have ever granted their unequivocal, individual consent. It also raises many legal questions as to what constitutes ‘official council business”. If residents email a councillor inviting him/her to a private party because he/she happens to be friends with these residents, then what right have anonymous officers got to view such private emails? And who is the ultimate arbiter of ‘official business’ anyway? The real issue though is how can something be classified as ‘official business’ unless it is first opened and read by an anonymous council-appointed censor?

The Whelan Report made it absolutely clear that the siege mentality of this administration is to gather as much ‘information’ (on councillor activity?) as possible –“The administration has adopted the practice of retaining copious records as protection against possible accusations by Councillors”. Logically then, in order to sift through what might be ‘accusatory’, everything must be captured, logged, archived, and kept in a little black book on someone’s desk.

Surveillance is enshrined even further through the Staff Code of Conduct – “Staff members must keep their manager/Director informed about information/requests from Councillors. If a matter is of interest to a Councillor, the Councillor may raise it with the Director or CEO and they ought to be aware of it so that they can respond effectively. The only officers who are authorised to provide written information to Councillors are the CEO and Directors. This includes faxes and emails. The reason is that the CEO and Directors meet regularly with Councillors and are aware of the context of requests and issues. All written information to Councillors goes via the Councillors’ secretariat in the CEO’s Office”.

In most organisations, this is innocuous and reasonable. How benign such as state of affairs is in Glen Eira is the fundamental question. Senior administration have elevated themselves to the role of self-appointed gatekeepers, collecting and feeding whatever information they want to councillors. Further, it could be argued that other staff are dragooned into being pseudo spies, reporting every conversation and request to those on high. We know of repeated councillor requests for information which have failed to materialise, or have been delayed for so long that the issue is dead and buried.

One thing is absolutely clear to many residents. The corporate culture of Glen Eira is in desperate need of change. Only Councillors can enact this change – if there’s the will and the courage – as demonstrated in the Gold Coast councillors’ resolution.

September 23, 2011

A Penny For Your Thoughts!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Service Performance
[20] Comments

We’ve previously reported on the allegations of bullying and harassment made against Cr. Penhalluriack by Andrew Newton. We’ve also highlighted the fact that such allegations are not a new tactic by Mr. Newton – as evidenced in the Whelan Report.

We believe that it is in the public interest to reveal some further information on this issue so that the record is set straight and people may make up their own minds as to what is actually going on. The facts are:

Council (rather than WorkSafe) hired Ms. O’Neill to conduct an ‘investigation’ into the bullying allegations
Ms. O’Neill is a lawyer specialising in workplace issues
Two residents were interviewed by Ms. O’Neill at the request of Cr. Penhalluriack
These residents were asked for their views on the ‘interactions’ between Cr. Penhalluriack and Newton at 4 separate Council Meetings. They were also asked for their opinion as to whether these ‘interactions’ were ‘appropriate’
The specific council meetings primarily involved Cr. Penhalluriack’s Request for a Report on meetings between the MRC and Newton; the mulch heap fiasco and the Boyd park grant for drainage.

Both residents confirmed the following:

Penhalluriack was fulfilling his legal and fiduciary duty in highlighting possible health risks which could place Council (and its employees) at risk if not attended to. It was also noted that only two councillors voted against the motion. Hence a majority were in agreement with Penhalluriack
That as a councillor Penhalluriack has a legal and fiduciary duty to ensure that funding is spent in the most cost-effective manner and to the benefit of the residents of the municipality
That other councillors over the years have also expressed ‘disappointment’ with the content, comprehensiveness, and overall quality of officers’ reports. That current councillors, apart from Penhalluriack, have questioned procedures and the need for cost-benefit analyses in reports.
That in their view, Penhalluriack’s language, demeanour, and questioning of officers is perfectly appropriate given his role and legal obligations as a councillor. At no time could either resident perceive these ‘interchanges’ as bullying and harassment.

Admittedly, neither of these residents are privy to what goes on behind closed doors. They could only attest to what they had witnessed. However, several points need to be made:

Are we really and truly expected to believe that a seasoned bureaucrat like Newton suddenly feels threatened because a councillor sees fit to ask uncomfortable questions in public and/or in private? Or that he demands reports that are detailed and comprehensive?
Should residents accept the silence and refusal to answer public questions on how much this investigation has cost them? We have stated before that any lawyer worth a cracker would probably be charging somewhere between $150 and $400 per hour. Then there’s also the writing of the report and god knows how many people were interviewed. So what is the pay out to O’Neill? We hazard a guess that it could be well over $30,000.
History tells us that the bullying card has been played before by Newton. Really amazing that a man who has worked in Canberra and at State level and undoubtedly experienced much pressure in these jobs, should twice in 6 years suddenly feel ‘bullied’ by mere part timers, who ostensibly, are simply doing their elected tasks.
What further machinations are being played out behind closed doors, since the in camera items continue to feature ‘Occupational Health & Safety’ items which we presume relates to this affair?

We’ve also stated several times that the history of Glen Eira is besmirched with dismissals, disagreements, and now 4 Municipal Investigations. All (serendipitously) coincide with the arrival of Newton. He remains the solitary common denominator in all these trials and tribulations. The next month is thus crucial. Councillors must decide whether to anoint him for another 2 years, or seek a new CEO that will bring a breath of fresh air into Glen Eira and transform what many residents see as a repressive and out of touch corporate culture.

« Previous Page — Next Page »

Glen Eira Debates