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.

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.