GE Governance

Archived Posts from this Category

June 23, 2012

O’Neill Bites The Dust!

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

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.

 

June 21, 2012

Hansard: More ‘Window Dressing’?

Posted by gleneira under GE Governance
[4] Comments 

20th June -Second reading: Jeanette Powell

Mrs POWELL (Minister for Local Government) —

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Local Government Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous) Bill 2012 will make a variety of amendments to local government legislation to improve the operation of councils. It includes amendments to the Local Government Act 1989, the City of Melbourne Act 2001 and the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998.

Amendments to the Local Government Act will improve the conduct of council meetings and clarify decision-making processes. This includes inserting a clear statement in the Local Government Act about the way council decisions may be made. Council decisions may only be made in a properly constituted council meeting or, if council has delegated its decision-making power to a committee or officer, by that committee or officer.

A council decision must not be made in an assembly of councillors, such as in an advisory committee or in a councillor briefing.

The bill will remove an unenforceable provision that makes it compulsory for all councillors in a council meeting to vote. This will be replaced by a provision specifying that a majority of the councillors in the meeting must vote in favour of a motion before the motion can pass. This will allow a councillor to abstain from voting in a meeting, but the abstention will not alter the number of votes required for the motion to pass.

A councillor who has left the meeting because of a conflict of interest, or who is otherwise absent, is not counted as either having voted or as an abstention for the purpose of this provision.

The bill also includes some specific procedural improvements for conflicts of interest. These include allowing a councillor with conflicts of interest in sequential items before council to make all his or her disclosures before the first item, rather than having to re-enter the meeting to disclose for each one. A councillor who has a conflict of interest in an item in the council plan will be able to vote on the final council plan if, and only if, council has previously voted to include that item in the plan and the councillor disclosed the conflict of interest when the previous vote was taken. It is important that all councillors are able to participate in approving the council plan.

Some amendments deal with processes to be followed when dealing with alleged misconduct. New provisions will allow the appointment of a probity auditor, at the discretion of the Secretary of the Department of Planning and Community Development.

A probity auditor may only be requested by a chief executive officer or a mayor. A council does not require the ability to request a probity auditor, as it has the power to appoint a probity auditor at its own discretion. The role of a probity auditor would be to monitor internal council processes where there has been a formal complaint of bullying, victimisation or harassment against the chief executive officer. The probity auditor may also provide advice to the council.

A probity auditor’s area of interest will be limited to council processes in relation to the complaint. He or she will not deal with the substance of the complaint, which will continue to be subject to any relevant judicial, administrative or contractual arrangements. At the conclusion of an audit, the probity auditor will provide a report to the council, the mayor, the chief executive officer and the secretary.

In regard to councillor conduct matters, an amendment to the VCAT act will help clarify some issues in councillor conduct hearings. An existing provision, which requires the council to pay the costs of individual councillors in a VCAT hearing, will be limited to situations where the council is the applicant in VCAT or where the council voluntarily becomes a party to the matter.

The purpose of this amendment is to remove a possible inducement for individual councillors to apply for their councillor conduct panel matter to be referred to VCAT so that council will have to pay their legal costs. It will retain the protection for an individual councillor when the council has initiated action against him or her in VCAT.

The members of a councillor conduct panel are required to be parties to any application to VCAT when there has been an application for a review of the panel decision. The bill will extend the term of office of panel members to the end of any such VCAT hearing. This is to ensure that panel members continue to be subject to immunity under the Local Government Act and they continue to be paid by the council.

A significant amendment in the bill will require each chief executive officer to publish a summary of election campaign donations, disclosed by candidates in the council’s elections, on the council’s website. This will include the name of each donor and the value of the donations made by each donor. The bill will remove a provision making it an offence to defame a candidate in a council election. This is an inappropriate and ineffective provision. Defamation is treated as a civil matter in state and federal elections and should be the same in local government elections.

The bill will alter the meeting requirements for regional library boards. Currently regional library boards must comply with meeting requirements that apply to councils, which imposes some unnecessary burdens. The bill will allow members of a library board to attend meetings by electronic means, subject to approval of its local law by the member councils.

Significant reforms are proposed to legislation relating to the levying of differential rates. This is in response to a recent trend for councils to use differential rates in ways that discriminate against particular industries or businesses by imposing artificially high rates on them. The bill includes a head of power for the minister to issue guidelines on the appropriate uses of differential rates. Councils will be required to have regard to the guidelines when setting differential rates. If the minister considers that the imposition of a differential rate will be inconsistent with the guidelines, he or she will be able to seek an order in council to prevent the levying of a differential rate in respect of the particular type or class of land. The bill will require councils to publish details of  differential rates on the internet as well as increasing, from 30 to 60 days, the time allowed for a person to seek a review in VCAT about the way their land has been classified for differential rating.

An amendment is also proposed to the way penalty interest is calculated on unpaid rates and charges. In future, penalty interest will only be payable from the date when each quarterly instalment is due. This will apply even when a council allows payment in a lump sum. If a lump sum is not paid on time, penalty interest will be calculated as if the rates were being paid in instalments.

The bill includes a number of administrative changes. Members of council audit committees, who can have access to confidential and sensitive information, will be required to lodge regular returns in which they disclose their interests. An obsolete provision, preserving long service leave rights in a way that is inconsistent with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, will be repealed.

Provisions allowing councils to dispose of unregistered and abandoned vehicles will be amended to mirror provisions in the Road Management Act 2004, applying to VicRoads. This will include having to take reasonable steps to notify a vehicle’s owner before disposing of the vehicle.

As titled, this bill will make a number of miscellaneous amendments to local government legislation. Some of these amendments are quite significant and the bill will substantially improve the administration of local government in Victoria.

I commend the bill to the house.

 

June 20, 2012

Local Government Act

Posted by gleneira under GE Governance
[5] Comments 

Today’s Media Release from the Minister for Local Government –

Improving the Local Government Act

Wednesday, 20 June 2012

Minister for Local Government Jeanette Powell has today introduced the Local Government Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous) Bill 2012 into State Parliament.

The Bill amends the Local Government Act (the Act) to correct a number of shortcomings in the legislation and provide better governance for local government.

The Bill deals with, amongst other things, differential rates, election campaign donations, processes regarding complaints about council Chief Executive Officers and council costs in VCAT hearings into councillor misconduct.

The Victorian Coalition Government will develop guidelines for the appropriate use of differential rates by councils and empower the Minister to seek an Order in Council to stop councils applying differential rates that are inconsistent with the guidelines.

There will be a six month public consultation process regarding the new guidelines before councils determine their budget for 2013.

“There are concerns regarding the growing use of differential rates by councils,” Mrs Powell said.

“”In my view the Act currently provides councils with insufficient guidance regarding the application of a differential rate.

“A significant increase in the use of differential rates by local councils has created a complex web of different rates for similar ratepayers across Victoria.

“There is considerable variation in the application of differential rates between councils with 14 councils levying no differential rate, 39 councils having four or more differential rates and six councils have at least 10.

“Some differential rates are only applied to a small number of properties. 36 councils have differential rates that apply to less than 30 properties.

“The Bill will also improve the public transparency around campaign donations in council elections.

“Candidates are required by law to disclose all election campaign donations, in money or in kind, that are valued at $500 or more.

“In future, each council will be required to publish a list of all donations disclosed by candidates on the council website.

“The Bill also includes amendments to provide for a probity auditor to oversee handling of a complaint about the conduct of a Chief Executive Officer.

“The amendment will give all parties to a complaint confidence that proper processes are being followed by allowing the Mayor or the CEO to ask the Secretary of the Department of Planning and Community Development to appoint a probity auditor to monitor the council’s processes.

“The Bill will also reduce the incidence of councils having to pay the legal costs of councillors in VCAT misconduct hearings.

“Under the changes a council will only be liable for a councillors costs when the council is the applicant in VCAT or has requested to become a party.

“A council will not be liable for costs when an individual councillor has applied for the matter to go to VCAT instead of a Councillor Conduct Panel.

“Councillor Conduct Panels are the appropriate forum to deal with most councillor misconduct matters, as they specialise in councillor conduct matters and involve less cost to ratepayers,” Mrs Powell said.

COMMENT

Without seeing the actual draft legislation it is difficult to comment. However, a few initial thoughts:

  • Removing Council’s liability to pay for VCAT cases into councillor conduct issues is fine. However, this would appear to totally ignore the current problems. As it stands, a Councillor Conduct Panel is conducted in secret, behind closed doors. We believe that it must be an open forum so that accountability is achieved.
  • Secondly, Councillor Conduct Panels do not permit the presence of lawyers. They are chaired by Municipal Association Members only. We again think that if someone’s reputation is on the line then they should be entitled to a proper legal defense.
  • Rulings on various matters that are brought to Councillor Conduct Panels should not remain the domain of ex-bureaucrats. Independence is essential, not only to be seen to be independent, but independent in reality . The ‘boys’ club’ of ex ceo’s and high flying bureaucrats is  far too entrenched we believe to leave such matters entirely up to them. Ideally a former judge or magistrate should chair and conduct these investigations.
  • We will have to wait and see exactly what the role and function of a ‘probity’ investigator is defined as. If it relates strictly to financial matters, then again we do not believe this goes far enough. Currently the majority of the LGA focuses on councillors and their responsibilities. Very little is directed towards staff. The Act must be reviewed and residents must have confidence that the exact same legal strictures that apply to councillors, also apply to employees and are spelt out precisely. The latter’s accountability and transparency must become a formal legal requirement.

All in all, we live in the most interesting times !

 

June 19, 2012

Racecourse Machinations: A Little History

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Governance
[5] Comments 

The bane of residents’ lives has undoubtedly been the creation of the Racecourse Special Committee – originally comprising Hyams, Lipshutz, and Pilling, and then, in November 2010, the addition of Esakoff. The coup was thus complete with the installation of the ‘gang of four’. Part of the argument used was that the 3 councillors serving as trustees had a ‘conflict of interest’ and that the Winky Pop decision eliminated Penhalluriack and early on Forge before she became a Trustee. We have therefore had the repeated spectacle of Magee, Tang, Whiteside, and now Forge and Penhalluriack being ‘sidelined’ because of their presumed conflict of interest. Lobo simply didn’t count it seems! That left the door fully ajar for the Special Committee to decide the fate of the C60 in April 2011 and the centre of the Racecourse.

We’ve revisited these meetings and found that:

  • On the 23rd November, 2010 Penhalluriack and Forge moved the motion that the Special Committee be disbanded. It was defeated on the casting vote of the chairperson with Tang and Magee having declared a conflict of interest. Lobo voted with Penhalluriack and Forge. Pilling was absent
  • Hyams and Lipshutz then got Esakoff elected to the committee – completing the rout – and setting up the ‘gang of four’.

What’s fascinating and continues to be fascinating is the consistent position taken by Tang, Forge, Magee as trustees. In all bar one instance when Magee felt he didn’t have a conflict of interest, all other occasions have had these individuals declaring a conflict. Even Penhalluriack has bought the line about his being Winky Popped!

It then becomes very, very interesting to go to Hansard and read the following extracts from the debate on the Local Government and Planning Legislation Amendment Act 2010.  What’s important here, is that this bill received assent on the 14th September 2010 – well before the April decision on the c60 and the Centre of the Racecourse. Here’s what the Minister of the time (Wynne) had to say about the Amendment as well as the current Minister of Local Government, Jeanette Powell.

WYNN: A councillor or council officer will not be considered to have a conflict of interest because of a conflicting duty if the relevant duty is only a position held as a representative of the council on another organisation and as long as there is no remuneration for that position.

POWELL: The bill also exempts a person from a conflict of interest that may arise from a conflicting duty if the person was appointed to the relevant position as a representative of the council and does not receive any remuneration for that position. This will replace a similar exemption that was limited to not-for-profit organisations and did not rely on the person being a council representative. This was previously quite confusing for councillors who were council representatives on a referral body such as a catchment management authority or a planning authority.

In such cases, when the council dealt with an issue related to a particular body in council, the councillor who was a representative on that body had to disclose that they had a conflict of interest, had to not take part in the discussion or vote and was required to leave the room.

It was a silly measure because it meant that the person in the room with the most knowledge of that referral authority or the issue had to leave the room. It did not mean that that person had more of a conflict of interest than anybody else. This amendment clarifies that if a councillor is on a special committee as a representative of council, they do not have a conflict of interest. (11TH August 2010).

COMMENT

There was therefore, and still remains, absolutely no need for a Special Committee since Tang, Magee, Forge do NOT HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST according to the above. The Special Committee could have been voted out in November 2010. That of course would have dramatically altered the landscape and possibly had the potential to scuttle the unholy alliance between Newton, his little band of troopers, and the MRC. Instead we are still saddled with the most iniquitous and undemocratic committee in the history of this council. The committee should never have been set up, and nor should it exist now!

 

June 16, 2012

The Bastardry Continues!

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

Below is an email which the journalist Keith Moor sent to Cr Penhalluriack prior to his article on the recent boarding house fines. We cite this email in full – apart from the journalist’s phone number.

“Dear Mr Penhalluriack, I am writing an article for tomorrow’s Herald Sun about an illegal backpacker hostel which is being run from 339 Hawthorn Rd and which the Glen Eira Council is attempting to have shut down or brought up to the fire safety standards required of a rooming house.

I have copies of letters written by the council to the property owner. I have done a property search on it and found the company K.I.Penhalluriack owns the property. I have done a company search and found you and your wife are the directors of that company.

Can you please call me at work on xxxxx so I can get some comment from you to include in the article.

Cheers

Keith Moor”

COMMENT:

  • Whether or not Moor contacted Council first, or whether Council contacted Moor over this issue palls into insignificance with the admission that Moor has ‘copies of letters written by council’. We believe that this is in breach of the Privacy Act and certainly unethical.
  • Who sent the documents to the Herald Sun? Why were these documents sent? One unavoidable conclusion has to be that this is just another  shot in the long running smear campaign?
  • What faith should residents therefore have in any ‘private’ information that this council holds about them and the adherence to both ethical and legal practice?

For those readers unfamiliar with the Information Privacy Act, we cite the following sections and ask that the actions of this administration be seen in the light of these.

The Information Privacy Act states (in part) in relation to the disclosure of information to a third party –

“An organisation must not use or disclose personal information about an individual for a purpose (the secondary purpose) other than the primary purpose of collection unless—

(a) both of the following apply—

(i) the secondary purpose is related to the primary purpose of collection and, if the personal information is sensitive information, directly related to the primary purpose of collection;

(ii) the individual would reasonably expect the organisation to use or disclose the information for the secondary purpose;or

(b) the individual has consented to the use or disclosure; or

(c) if the use or disclosure is necessary for research, or the compilation or analysis of statistics, in the public interest, other than for publication in a form that identifies any particular individual—

(i) it is impracticable for the organisation to seek the individual’s consent before the use or disclosure”

Glen Eira Council’s Privacy Policy also states: “Council will only use personal information within Council, or disclose it outside Council, for the purpose for which it was collected or in accordance with the Act (eg where it has obtained consent or where the person would reasonably expect this to occur)”.

 

June 15, 2012

News Flash: ‘All Charges Dismissed’

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

From Diamond Valley Leader

Magistrate dismisses Nillumbik councillor’s case

  • 15 Jun 12 @ 03:37pm by Raelene Wilson

CONFLICT of interest charges against a Nillumbik councillor were dismissed by a Heidelberg magistrate this afternoon.

Magistrate Michael Smith dismissed two charges against Cr Belinda Clarkson involving allegations she failed to declare a conflict of interest during confidential items discussed at a 2010 council meeting.

The Local Government and Compliance Inspectorate charged Cr Clarkson in July 2011 over the alleged breaches of the Local Government Act. Cr Clarkson denied the breaches, saying she believed she met conflict of interest exemptions under the Act.

COMMENT:

Our faith in the justice system has been fully restored with a decision in the Heidelberg Magistrate’s court today which dismissed all charges of conflict of interest against a Nillumbik Councillor. The brief background is that council had originally sent this councillor to a Conduct Panel. The councillor asserted her legal right to defend her reputation at VCAT. Nillumbik council, realising that the costs would be atronomical, withdrew. However, the Local Government Municipal Inspectorate then stepped in and laid charges that went to the Magistrate’s Court. Today, all these charges were thrown out and costs (which we estimate to be close to $200,000) awarded against the Inspectorate.

At the heart of this issue, which bears many similarities to the current witch-hunt against Penhalluriack, was the question of natural justice and the performance of administrators. It was quite illuminating to see the Nillumbik CEO in the witness stand sweating and mumbling under cross examination by Hore-Lacy trying to defend the indefensible and his role in the entire saga.

We only hope that this decision is a stern warning to all those who believe they can stomp on individual rights, ignore the basics of natural justice, and in the process waste hundreds and hundreds of thousands of ratepayer and taxpayer funds. The judgement also represents a stern warning to councillors who, as in the Nillumbik case, came out with egg on their face for their collusion in what was shown to be allegations without foundation.

 

June 4, 2012

Desperate Tactics By Desperate Men!

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

The following story is featured in today’s Herald Sun.  What concerns us more than the allegations, is the ongoing concerted character assassination – without evidence – ably abetted by Hyams and his masters. We draw readers’ attention to his alleged comments and ask –

  • Is this how a Mayor should behave – judge, jury and executioner?
  • How dare Hyams divine motive without ‘evidence’?
  • How did the Herald Sun get hold of the story?

We find it totally reprehensible that Hyams has the gall to state that a fellow councillor is attempting to ‘flout the law…to make a profit’. Our conclusion: what a nasty piece of work this is!

Glen Eira councillor link to alleged illegal backpacker house

  • Keith Moor
  • From: Herald Sun
  • June 04, 2012 12:00AM

AN alleged illegal backpacker hostel labelled as a death trap is being run out of a property owned by Sunday trading rebel and Glen Eira councillor Frank Penhalluriack.

Cr Penhalluriack’s own council recently sent a written warning demanding the hostel either be shut down or made safe. But the demands have so far not been met and the hostel in Hawthorn Rd, Caulfield, is still operating.

A Herald Sun reporter attempted to check in on Friday night, but was told every bed was taken. Sounds of a party in full swing could be heard coming from the house.

Glen Eira Mayor Jamie Hyams said it was extremely disappointing a councillor was allegedly “flouting the law like that to make a profit”. “These places are often potential death traps, not to mention the disruption they cause to the lives of neighbours,” he said.

But Cr Penhalluriack said if the property was being run as a backpacker hostel then it was happening without his knowledge. He said he rented it to a man with a wife and children about five months ago.

Council building surveyors last month inspected Cr Penhalluriack’s property, which is sandwiched between his Caulfield hardware store and garden centre, and found it was being illegally used as a boarding house. That inspection was prompted by a complaint from a nearby resident about rubbish problems and the “constant turnover of backpackers” at the house. There were nine backpackers living in it and paying rent to a tenth resident when the place was inspected on May 2.

Cr Penhalluriack yesterday said it wasn’t worth spending money on the property as he was planning to demolish it and turn it into car parking for his garden centre. He said he recently gave the tenants 30 days to leave.

Cr Penhalluriack’s protests against a ban on Sunday trading led to him being jailed for 19 days in 1984. The state government eventually allowed open slather trading in 1996.
moork@heraldsun.com.au
– with Jonno Nash

 

May 31, 2012

Secret No More!

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

The following provides residents with a glimpse into the behind the scenes machinations that have come to characterise this administration and councillors. First we present part of the in camera minutes of 20th September 2011 which were not reproduced in any public minutes. However in the minutes of 22nd November 2011 there is a new resolution which bears a striking resemblance to the unpublished one. The in camera minutes of 20th September state –

Crs Tang/Hyams

In relation to Cr Penhalluriack’s 9 August right of reply Council:

  1. 1.     Notes that On 9 August 2011 Cr Frank Penhalluriack made a Right of Reply in which he stated:-

“The article refers to a legal stoush, and claims that residents are saying that Council has sought legal advice concerning allegations that I have bullied our Chief Executive Officer, Mr Andrew Newton. I am embarrassed and demeaned by such an unfounded allegation reaching publication in such a widely circulated newspaper. And I can safely presume that our Chief Executive Officer will also suffer this embarrassment.”

2.     Considers that the above statement is likely to mislead or deceive.

3.     Requested Cr Penhalluriack to withdraw this statement and he has not done so.

4.     Considers that had Council rebutted the statement at that time, or were Council to do so in a public forum, it may constitute a breach of confidentiality. Council therefore notes that the comments were likely to mislead or deceive and accordingly, Council disassociates itself from those comments (our emphasis)

DIVISION

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

FOR                                                                       AGAINST

Cr Esakoff                                                             Cr Penhalluriack

Cr Lobo                                                                 Cr Forge

Cr Lipshutz                                                            Cr Magee

Cr Tang

Cr Hayms

Cr Pilling

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

Then wonder of wonders, the minutes of 22nd November contain this resolution –

Crs Lipshutz/Tang 

In relation to Cr Penhalluriack’s 9 August Right of Reply, Council: 

1. Notes that on 9 August 2011 Cr Frank Penhalluriack made a Right of Reply in which he stated in part:

“The article refers to a legal stoush, and claims that residents are saying that Council has sought legal advice concerning allegations that I have bullied our Chief Executive Officer, Mr Andrew Newton. I am embarrassed and demeaned by such an unfounded allegation reaching publication in such a widely circulated newspaper. And I can safely presume that our Chief Executive Officer will also suffer this embarrassment.” 

2. Resolves to disassociate itself from the comments made by Cr Penhalluriack referred to in paragraph 1 above. 

3. That this resolution be incorporated in to the public record of this meeting. 

The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously. 

COMMENTS

Readers need to keep in mind that this second resolution happened to take place when Penhalluriack (and Lobo) were on leave. It also raises questions as to why two councillors changed their votes and what kind of pressures may have been applied to ensure that the resulting vote was unanimous? As to the logic of the argument, well, we’ve already commented on that in our November 2011 post, but it’s worth reiterating that there is a vast difference between potentially breaching confidentiality as stated in the first resolution and the conclusion that ‘the comments were likely to mislead or deceive’. Further, Council at this point in time had not revealed that O’Neill had been hired, so by including the ‘fresh’ resolution in the minutes of 22nd November they were probably contravening their own confidentiality embargo!!!

Readers may well ask, what’s the point of two similar resolutions? Is this simple ‘damage control’? More muck raking? Or so that the word ‘unanimous’ can be put at the bottom and continue the pretence that this is a united council? Please note again who are the primary  ‘little helpers’. 

 

May 28, 2012

Newton v Penhalluriack: #2

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

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

  1.  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.”

 

May 27, 2012

Prudent Financial Management? – Duncan McKinnon

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

The saga of the Duncan McKinnon grandstand and pavilion ‘redevelopment’ continues. Council minutes now reveal that the tender has finally been awarded and that the contract price is $9,744,651.52.  

We’re astounded at the apparent inflation rate. All along residents have been sold different versions of what this will cost. The 2011/12 budget stated –“$5.5m for Duncan Mackinnon in 2011-2012 and $1.8m in 2012- 2013”. This year’s budget tells us : “Duncan Mackinnon – $1.09m for Duncan Mackinnon Pavilion construction in 2012-2013 (plus carry forward from 2011-12)”. As for total costs, these are anybody’s guess – something that is surely reminiscent of the increasing costs associated with GESAC. Public pronouncements started off at about $7 million. Then in June last year, the price was announced as being $8.8 million. Now it’s just under ten million and this doesn’t include ‘design’, road restructuring, car park extensions, and so on.

Questions:

  • How can there be a million dollar jump in the space of less than one year?
  • How can there be a several million dollar jump in cost in the space of 2 years?
  • Have residents and councillors been told furphies as to cost all the way along?
  • Where’s the extra money coming from since council can’t borrow anymore?
  • How much has already been spent on ‘design’?
  • Has the delay and subsequent price increase been the direct result of financial blowouts over GESAC? Are we heading down the same path with Duncan McKinnon?
  • Are other services being cut in order to fund Duncan McKinnon?
 

« Previous Page — Next Page »