ITEM 4.3: Reopening the mulch facility

Penhalluriack declared a conflict of interest as a result of the ombudsman’s report but maintained that he hasn’t a conflict of interest.

Lipshutz moved the motion to reopen and Magee seconded.

LIPSHUTZ: Said that when council first made its decision to close the facility that this was based on ‘mainly’ on Penhalluriack providing councillors ‘with some reports…..mainly Google (based) I understand….(and what council has got is a report made by a government department and professionals, so) ‘appropriate course would be…..reinstate the mulch shed’ (and put into place the recommendations from the consultant. Will provide) ‘safety and certainty for the community’.

MAGEE: Magee said that he’d asked many customers from the sawmill industry about how they ‘confine’ their green and dry waste. The answer that he was told to overcome all problems is a ‘mist spray’….’keeps the dust at bay’ (so stops the inhaling of dust). Was pleased to see that the consultants recommended this and admitted he didn’t notice this when he first read the report ‘so good to see that’s an industry standard’. Stated that the mulch would now be ‘confined within the confines’ of the shed and not allowed to spill out. Said that all the recommendations such as gloves, masks, spray etc. would be installed and that if in 6 months times ‘we’re still having issues’ and the mulch is seeping out, then the shed could be regularly emptied. ‘I’m more than happy with the conditions that are put on it’ and that now with the industry standards applied that ‘they are more than sufficient’.

FORGE: announced that she had an ‘alternative motion’ that stated the item is ‘outside the scope of the notice’ of the agenda and that all councillors be given before the May council meeting ‘all necessary documents relating to the mulch facility’ and that these consist of ‘all test reports conducted by Noel Arnold’ followed by a report from officers on relocating the facility.

PILLING: stated that in May last year there had been a request for a report on alternate sites ‘that hasn’t come to council….I have concerns about the site….next to a chiildren’s playground and a school….I support the request for a report…. I think it’s fair enough that the report comes to council before we vote on it’. Spoke about the arguments put up when there was discussion about Notice of Motion and that councillors should have information and that applies here – ie councillors get the information first and then vote…..’we should follow process’….”I’ll be voting against 4.3″.

TANG: Said it’s important to explain his position. On the original motion back last year he ‘was in opposition’ to the motion to close the facility. Said that he didn’t have concerns about the faility until Penhalluriack raised them. Said he thought that Penhalluriack’s position was ‘unreasonable’ in light of ‘the advice council had received’. These people had ‘put their professional qualifications on the line’ and he felt that with their recommendations the facility should have remained open. ‘My position in that regard hasn’t changed’….(and when councillors resolved to close it that’s why he moved the request for report on other suitable locations) ‘because I felt there was community support for the facility’….’the appropriate safeguards being those recommended to Council’. ‘We didn’t see the results of that report…..(because) of the various priorities Council has had…..I would want to see the outcome of that report…..(facility was good)’ but location was wrong….they should have the opportunity to see alternate sites….this facility can be provided from Glen Huntly Park with appropriate safeguards’. Happy to make a decision after seeing the Officers’ report.

MAGEE then asked Burke that since council has been looking for a site ‘for so long, has council found an alternative site?’

BURKE: ‘No we haven’t….original motion which was to close a free service not a service that was anything else’

MAGEE asked what difference this makes.

BURKE: ‘There is a good deal of confusion. Some people believe there were health issues. The motion was never about health issues. The motion was about closing a free facility’.

MOTION DEFEATED – voting for LIPSHUTZ, LOBO, MAGEE.

AGAINST: TANG, PILLING, FORGE, HYAMS

FORGE: repeated what she said earlier – item be adjourned; 2 weeks before 1st May meeting councillors receive ‘all necessary documents’ about test results and a report on feasability on relocating the facility ‘as previously requested by Council’. THERE WAS NO SECONDER!

LIPSHUTZ came up with another motion that councillors be ‘provided 14 days prior to the Council Meeting’ documents ‘including but not limited to all test results’ from consultants and a report from officers also be provided.

PILLING sought clarification on the reports. Burke answered that there is ‘only one report’ and that he is ‘not assuming that this is an attempt to gain access to documents that would be in confidence’.

LIPSHUTZ then rephrased  his motion AND  removed the word ALL from ‘test results’. Forge seconded.

LIPSHUTZ: Acknowledged that ‘process is important’. Forge’s original motion was ‘inappropriate because it is within the scope of this Council Meeting’

That’s why he couldn’t support the first part of Forge’s motion. Also said that for the Noel Arnold reports that ‘that’s not in the purview of Council and Council can’t ask for that….(they can look at the report and the) ‘process would be that council would consider the report’ (if there’s another place to relocate then) ‘council would consider that’.

TANG: Said that this is ‘difficult’ because not everyone agrees as to why they ‘knocked back the motion as printed’ (Didn’t support Forge’s motion because he didn’t think) ‘it was outside the scope….it does relate to the finding of the Ombudsman’. Went on to say that it ‘doesn’t matter’ if the driving force was Penhalluriack because ‘at the time we all had to make a decision based on the advice we received’. On test reports ‘I just don’t know what councillors are going to do with it….(councillors aren’t going to put an interpretation on them – that’s the job of Noel Arnold) ‘they need to interpret their test reports and come to a conclusion’….(Councillors can disagree with their report but not to) ‘rewrite the report based on the source material…..that’s outside the scope of the decision making process’. ‘I’m not in favour of reinterpreting the test results’. Said that councillors really want a report on ultimate sites. What’s wrong with Forge’s motion was ‘that there is no guarantee that that will go to the community’ so the resolution needs to ask that it goes to a council meeting. Suggested that this be added to the motion.

FORGE then asked Newton about the notice for the meeting that appeared in The Age. She read out the ‘purpose of the meeting’. ‘It seems to me we’re taking a lot of time to discuss the mulch’ and why this wasn’t included in the notice so that the gallery would know what they were going ‘to listen to’.

NEWTON: Said that the ‘meeting was called by the Mayor, not by me’ and that the ‘business of the meeting was specified by the Mayor’. The CEO ‘does not have the power to determine’ the agenda for Special Council Meetings.

FORGE then asked Hyams the question.

HYAMS: Read out the title of the Ombudsman’s report and said that the report ‘had a number of paragraphs….about the mulch facility. So in discussing this issue we are discussing that report’. Also stated that the agenda item was made available on the Friday so ‘the public would have seen’ what was to be discussed.

HYAMS: Agreed with Lipshutz and Tang that it’s important to get the officers’ report and ‘that’s the way we should be proceeding’. Said he would be voting against the motion because it doesn’t do ‘what councillors intend it to do’.

LIPSHUTZ: Said that the consultant’s report doesn’t mean that ‘councillors can start reinterpreting’. That before councillors make a decision it’s ‘appropriate’ that the officers’ report ‘is in front of us’. Supported Tang that the report comes back to an ordinary council meeting and would accept the amendment.

MOTION PUT – MOTION IS LOST

FAVOUR – FORGE, LIPSHUTZ, LOB0

AGAINST – HYAMS, MAGEE, TANG, PILLING

TANG then moved the motion that a report be provided to ordinary council meeting ‘detailing all findings to the…..feasibility….of alternate mulch facility….within the City of Glen Eira’ and that paragraphs 28-73 of the Ombudsman’s report as well. Lipshutz seconded.

MOTION PUT – carried unanimously.

One of the items on the agenda for next Tuesday night’s hastily called Special Council Meeting contains the ‘recommendation’ that the Glen Huntly Rd mulch facility be re-opened AT GLEN HUNTLY.  Under the pretext that this meeting is called to deal with the Ombudsman’s ‘recommendations’ Newton and his supporters have snuck this item into the agenda. Readers need to be fully aware that:

• The ombudsman never recommended the reopening of the facility
• The ombudsman also never commented on the potential health risks

Nothing but nothing in the ombudsman’s report has anything to do with the Peter Jones’ (under orders?) recommendation.

Further, the consultant’s scientific report is currently the subject of an FOI application. Council has refused to release documents that could have a direct bearing on any decision regarding the facility. Yet, here is the officers’ recommendation urging a re-opening. What if the VCAT member determines that the documents be released and the information reveals undue interference by officers? What if the health risks have somehow been downgraded? We already know that not all of the recommendations made it into the final version of the report. So given all these ‘unknowns’ and their possible ramifications for any decision making, why is this item in the agenda?

Tuesday night will therefore be the ‘acid test’ for councillors. Will they cave in and reopen the facility in exactly the same place? Will we witness another example of hypocrisy and the further erosion of public trust in anything that some councillors state?

We should remember that:

• In May 2011 Tang’s Request for a Report on alternate sites and relocation of the mulch facility was passed by Council. It has yet to make an appearance. This resolution still stands, yet there is no recommendation to ‘rescind’ such a motion and replace it with the current one.
• When councillors voted on the above many of their arguments were that they felt that the current location was clearly inappropriate given its proximity to a playground and a school – not to mention a public park. In fact our notes and the post we made at the time report that Pilling stated that the placement is wrong ‘wedged between a playground and a secondary school….I think it should be moved’. Esakoff also said that ‘given its location near a playground caution is warranted’. Nothing has changed. The facility is still there – contrary to the initial motion that it be removed. So much for council’s resolution and the legal requirement for the CEO to action all resolutions in a ‘timely’ fashion!
• Even the mover of the request (Tang) stated that if his motion for the report was defeated he ‘would let the issue lie’ – ie maintain the closure of the facility.

The acid test is definitely on councillors who voted for closure. They now have the opportunity to stand by their original words and decision. It is time that they put a stop to the continual manipulation that is endemic in Glen Eira and stood up for what is ethical, transparent, and represents good governance.

At the heart of this entire issue is the simple fact that the mulch facility should never have been placed at Glen Huntly. This decision was made by officers and we presume senior administrators. The campaign against Penhalluriack is, in our view, directly attributable to the fact that in response to resident concerns, he has dared to question and therefore highlight the potential failure of risk management at this council and faulty decision making. For this temerity he must be punished and tens of thousands of ratepayers’ funds expended on this inquisition.

This Special Council Meeting, called with such indecent haste, should be seen for what it is and questions asked as to why this particular recommendation is included since it has absolutely nothing to do with the Ombudsman’s Report. It’s definitely time that the games that Newton plays be exposed and challenged. That’s the acid test. Which of these councillors can pass the test?

After being sent packing by VCAT to redo their allegations against Cr Penhalluriack, Council’s lawyers (Maddocks) have come up with the following gem in their long list of complaints. We quote:

“it is alleged that the Respondent acted unreasonably towards the Applicant’s Director Assets and Facilities by criticising him at the Council meeting on 14 December 2010, by: referring to a project in respect of stormwater harvesting in Boyd Park, Murrumbeena as a ‘ridiculous project’ and a ‘waste of money”.

We’ve double checked what occurred at this meeting and in our post of the 15^th December 2010 we reported:

Item 9.8 Boyd park water (Pilling).

Penhalluriack spoke against the motion stating residents believe ‘they (council) are hopeless, but I’ve been defending council. But this one is the most ridiculous waste of money I’ve ever come across…This is $1.1 million dollars. Yes the government is giving half. So what? It is still money that can be spent’ elsewhere than this ‘extravagant, extroadinary waste of money’. He estimated that the final cost of the water would be 15.17 cents per litre. ‘Why should we be spending 16 cents per litre on this water….? “This is a nonsense….this is one of the worst money wasting schemes I’ve ever come across..’ No-one in their right mind would want to install this tank underground and pay 16 cents per litre. Magee agreed with Penhalluriack – it was still spending $500,000 council dollars. That’s money ‘that we could spend in our municipality servicing our ratepayers…’

Tang then stated that Penhalluriack ‘has gone further than he needed to’; that he didn’t have to talk about ‘the quality of the proposal’ and include ‘gratuitous references’ about it!!! ‘I think it is a good proposal’.

Lobo also saw it as a ‘big waste of money’ and wanted a ‘cost benefit analysis before we consider it further’. Forge also called for a more ‘accurate cost benefit analysis’ and the need to defer decision until more analysis was completed”.

COMMENT

Councillors have a legal and fiduciary responsibility to ensure that public funds are spent in the most efficient and responsible manner. Councillors also have the right to demand complete and full information prior to their decision making. Debates are part of the political process. What occurred on December 14^th 2010 is exactly what should happen – 4 councillors questioning the lack of detail in an officer’s report. Yet, only Penhalluriack is accused of ‘acting inappropriately’ and ‘criticising’ Peter Waite. If this is representative of the quality and substance of Council’s allegations then a full inquiry is necessary to determine how and why tens of thousands of dollars have been spent in an orchestrated witch hunt against Penhalluriack. As for Waite’s ‘embarrassment’ we leave this up to readers to determine.