Kennett in  beyondblue bully probe

Melissa Fyfe and Jill Stark

October 9, 2011

BEYONDBLUE’S former chief executive Dawn O’Neil made a written complaint of  bullying against the national depression initiative’s chairman, Jeff Kennett,  and later resigned when the board stood by the former Victorian premier.

The Sunday Age has been told Ms O’Neil, who left beyondblue  last  month after only nine months,  wrote to Mr Kennett in August complaining she  felt bullied and undermined by him. The details of the letter are unknown, but  she told close associates the chairman’s behaviour included ”ranting,  name-calling and [using] abusive language”.

Ms O’Neil, a member of the Order of Australia and former head of Lifeline,  has declined to comment on her resignation.Mr Kennett referred the bullying complaint to the beyondblue board, which  appointed a senior Melbourne barrister to investigate the allegations. The  investigation found the claims were unsubstantiated, and the board – which  includes former New South Wales premier Morris Iemma, retired Democrats senator  Natasha Stott Despoja and former Australian Capital Territory chief minister  Kate Carnell – stood behind its chairman.

The revelations come as Mr Kennett is up for re-election at beyondblue’s general meeting next week. It is unknown whether  he  will stand, but he retains the support of many.

”He’s a passionate and very vocal supporter of beyondblue and its  programs,” Mr Iemma said. ”I don’t have any concerns about the organisation at  all. It is a very well run organisation.”

Mr Kennett did not return The Sunday Age’s calls and beyondblue declined to comment on the latest developments.

Federal Mental Health Minister Mark Butler has asked the nation’s chief  medical officer, Professor Chris Baggoley, Canberra’s representative on  beyondblue’s board, to seek a briefing on the charity’s internal staffing issues  at the meeting, following concerns raised by several mental health  professionals.

It is believed that as beyondblue’s major funding partners, the federal and  Victorian governments each have seven votes on board reappointments, while other  state and territory members and the remaining eight board members have one  each.

The relationship between Mr Kennett and the former chief executive had soured  over several months, with Ms O’Neil feeling repeatedly undermined and unable to  carry out her job due to the chairman’s interference.

While she chose not to resign immediately after the board’s investigation  into her  claim, the rift between her and Mr Kennett  worsened  soon after, when  he promoted a staff member against her wishes.

The relationship appears to have broken down completely after Mr Kennett  wrote in his regular Herald Sun column on September 9  that the best  environment for the mental health of a child is a ”stable, loving environment  in which a male and female are married to each other”.

The column sparked a furore in the gay and lesbian community and embarrassed  major sponsor Movember, which provided more than $10 million to beyondblue last  year.

Ms O’Neil distanced the organisation from her chairman’s comments, issuing a  statement on the beyondblue website that said there was no evidence parents’  gender had an effect on children’s mental health. She tendered her resignation  on September 16 and left the organisation two weeks later.

The Sunday Age believes  Ms O’Neil was aware of Mr Kennett’s  reputation for being heavily involved in the operational side of the  organisation before she was appointed, but accepted the role with the  understanding he would step down by the end of this year. Mr Kennett had told  the media last year that he intended to retire at the end of 2010.

After seven years under the stewardship of chief executive Leonie Young, who  was close to Mr Kennett, Ms O’Neil’s arrival at beyondblue was welcomed within  and outside the organisation as a fresh perspective. But sources say she soon  felt undermined, especially by Mr Kennett’s refusal to warn her of the content  of his often controversial newspaper column, even when he was speaking on behalf  of the charity.

Mr Kennett had previously upset mental health experts with his comments  against changes that tackle problem gambling and has declined to resign from   his directorship of a company that services poker machines.

Mental Health Minister Mark Butler told The Sunday Age Commonwealth  funding – $9 million last year – required beyondblue to be governed  appropriately but Canberra ”could not supervise the internal affairs of an  organisation like beyondblue in the same way it would a Commonwealth  agency”.

Nevertheless, concerns had been raised with him about an internal staff  survey – commissioned by Ms O’Neil in January – in which beyondblue scored  poorly on key values such as morale, leadership and integrity.

Mr Butler has asked Professor Baggoley to seek a full report on ”internal  staffing matters” at the beyondblue AGM.

Once again we’re grateful to one of our readers who has alerted us to the following. The sublime irony of course is that councils such as this (and Glen Eira one would suspect) are desperate to be officially installed as the ‘third tier of government”.

Councils in confidence

Updated          October 06, 2011 15:29:42

At Parliament House in Canberra, taxpayer-funded staff film the deliberations of the both houses (and their various committees) and distribute the recordings to hungry journalists. Reporters are largely free to roam the halls, crossing paths with MPs and staffers.

A similarly relaxed environment exists at the Victorian Parliament, where journalists are also allowed free rein, can dine at the parliament’s eatery and film and record the Legislative Assembly and Council.

In each place, a set of guidelines exist so the media don’t get in the way, but access is generally unencumbered.

But it seems these liberties don’t extend to Australia’s lowest level of government.

Not if this reporter’s experiences at the Casey Council this week are any guide.

I visited Melbourne’s largest council, to the city’s south-east, to report on a heated local debate about whether the city’s veteran CEO should have his contract extended without the position being advertised.

I spoke to the council’s media liaison officer earlier in the day and as a courtesy (or so I thought) told her I’d be attending that night’s meeting with a camera crew.

An email soon appeared in my inbox.

In relation to your request to film, Casey’s Local Law states that … any application for … consent [to film] a Meeting must be made, in writing, at least twenty-four hours prior to the meeting to which the application applies.

Accepting this, we arrived an hour prior to the meeting to film the empty meeting chamber, but our camera was barred entry from the entire building.

Two, uniformed ‘Local Law Officers’ politely but firmly enforced this restriction.

The pair preceded to watch me for the duration of the council meeting, at one stage summoning me into the hallway to enquire if I’d been taking photos or making recordings on my mobile phone.

(For the record, I had taken some photos on my phone and the officer watched as I followed his request for it to be deleted.)

Similar restrictions are in place at other Victorian councils, though some do welcome and encourage media coverage.

The local government sector in Victoria employs about 42,500 people and spends roughly $6.1 billion of residents’ money each year.

The reality is that most ratepayers don’t attend council meetings.

If they’re to have any confidence that money is being spent wisely, it has to come through the media’s access and scrutiny of events.

If it’s good enough for state and federal parliaments to run an open-shop, why isn’t it good enough for some councils?

Ryan Sheales is an ABC journalist and former Victorian State Political Reporter.    First posted          October 06, 2011 12:51:05

Last night’s Special Committee meeting was arguably the lowest ethical point in the history of this Council. Following the formation of this secret Committee (and the failure to record this in official minutes, nor to undertake adequate,widespread advertising) the committee outdid itself in refusing to grant Cr Penhalluriack permission to speak – twice!

Penhalluriack sat in the gallery, thereby providing concrete evidence that he has been excluded from this Special Committee. Twice he requested permission to address council and twice this was refused. Given that it is the Mayor’s prerogative to allow anyone to address any council meeting, such a decision is abhorrent to all residents concerned about democratic principles of transparency, accountability and open government.

The gallery was asked to leave so that the entire proceedings could occur in camera – that is, in secret, away from public gaze, and with no expectation that anything will be reported in the minutes.

On another issue, we recommend that residents look at the published agendaand note that the specific reason why the meeting was not to be public has not been declared as required under the Local Government Act. With three lawyers on council, a corporate counsel with a budget of over $1.3 million, one is entitled to start asking questions about the legal processes, and prowess of these legal eagles!

To quote Andrew Bolt, free speech was assassinated last night in a performance that will go down in history as the antithesis of what good governance is all about.

Lucas dodges council email scandal

Ken Vernon   |  August 5th, 2011

From Channel 9 News –

Permission needed to vet councillors’ email

10:48 AEST Tue Aug 9 2011

Bureaucrats will no longer intercept  the emails of Gold Coast City councillors without their permission. A row erupted last week when Mayor Ron  Clarke discovered emails from two people classed as serial pests were being  intercepted and screened by senior officials.

Some emails, threatening violence, have  been referred to police.

While a few councillors are happy to  have nuisance emails screened, most objected.

Council voted on Monday to immediately  stop officials intercepting incoming emails or letters.

The mayor’s motion that “under no  circumstances can the Chief Executive Officer or any administrative staff,  intervene or censor any mail, be it electronic or standard” was carried  nine votes to four.

Mr Clarke says any councillor who does  want pest emails diverted or stopped can simply give the CEO permission to  intercept them.

“To me the principle is that no bureaucrat interferes in any way, shape or form, with any email or mail or  telephone calls to councillors,” he told AAP on Tuesday.

“Councillors are there to represent the people and for better or worse, wherever they come from, they should be able to handle their correspondence otherwise they shouldn’t be in  the position.

“More importantly the ratepayers  should be confident that whatever they send to their councillors will get to  them.”

The mayor said he’s happy to get emails  even from serial pests labelled as “vexatious complainants”. “You don’t want emails saying what  a good job you’re doing all the time, you want to find out what you’re not  doing right and who is being upset,” he said.

COMMENT: Several public questions over the years have asked why emails to councillors have at times been intercepted by various officers PRIOR to their being received by the councillors to whom such emails were addressed. The responses have been that councillors ‘agreed’ to this ‘policy’. As far as we know, such a ‘policy’ has never seen the light of day, and certainly the current crop of councillors have never officially voted on such a surveillance technique. Perhaps councillors would be willing to state openly their opinion(s) on this issue and whether or not they believe that their private communications to residents and colleagues, (whether or not it is on so called ‘council business’) should be hijacked by various unelected officials?

More fun and games are in the offing with the creation of a Special Committee to consider whether or not to reappoint Andrew  Newton. An alert reader notified us of this fact via an advertisement placed in today’s (Monday) Business Age. Questions thus abound:

• Why a Special Committee? Does this mean that we will have another C60 fiasco where not all councillors will be included on this committee?
• Special Committees must have agendas, minutes, and notification to the public. There’s nothing up on the council website – yet there’s been time to place an ad in The Age where the chances of anyone finding it are practically zilch!
• Will the committee work behind closed doors and ‘confidentiality’ to avoid publishing minutes, etc?
• Will Lipshutz, Hyams or Esakoff chair this committee?
• What are the terms of reference? This must be made public.
• And don’t you love the title!