GE Service Performance

Archived Posts from this Category

May 10, 2011

The Leader: What’s the Agenda?

Posted by gleneira under GE Service Performance
[11] Comments 

For the second consecutive week, The Caulfield Leader features the Mulch Saga on its front page, under the headline “Mulch Ado About? – Anger after free service scrapped”.

TV gardening personality Vasili Kanidaidis has slammed Glen Eira Council’s “ridiculous” decision to scrap its free mulch service. The council says it has no plans to relocate the two-decade-old service which allowed residents to take mulch from Glen Huntly Reserve until councillors voted to remove it because of health fears. That was despite advice from health authorities and independent testing which proved there was no risk of residents contracting legionnaires’ disease.

Mayor Margaret Esakoff confirmed the council was “not aware of any cases of legionnaires’ or other health complaints since the service began”.

Mr Kanidaidis, from the show Vasili’s Garden, said he had never heard of any cases during his career. “It’s as safe as walking down the street,” Mr Kanidaidis said. “The world is full of pollution, you just have to walk down the street to experience some of that, let alone opening a bag of mulch. If you had to worry about that, you’d be walking around with masks on 24/7.”

The Leader was inundated with letters from residents disappointed the service was removed. Caulfield resident Susan Kowadlo said she used it for many years and never became ill. “Adult gardeners are quite capable of using their own judgment in deciding if they choose to use this service,” Ms Kowadlo said.

Cr Esakoff said there was “no current proposal to relocate the facility”. “The shed itself and its future use have not yet been determined, and the shed is currently empty,” Cr Esakoff said.

A number of councils offer residents free mulch, including Port Phillip, Hume and Moreland.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Move it, don’t bury it

I have been using this service for years and never got sick. If there’s demand for the mulch then the turnover will minimise any hazard. Furthermore it is little different to kids playing in mulch around council trees or in their own garden. Put the pile somewhere else if need be, but let this valuable service continue.

Risk to children

As a mum of a baby and a toddler living within 200m of Glen Huntly reserve, I am so pleased with the council’s decision. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for free mulch for the community, but not next to a children’s playground and school!

Since the facility was erected I have mostly taken my kids to other playgrounds, which has been such a shame, given Glen Huntly park is by far the closest, and with great equipment for little ones. Even if there is the most minimal risk of health impacts, why would I expose my children to it?

The rotten, mouldy smell has also often been too much to tolerate. It may be fine for people picking up the mulch for a short time, but certainly not for an hour or so, to give the kids a good play.

 

May 3, 2011

Extravagance or Sound Management?

Posted by gleneira under GE Service Performance
[4] Comments 

We’ve commented numerous times on what appears to be the wastage of ratepayers’ monies. We’ve highlighted shoddy workmanship, the necessity to have things done and then redone, and generally no visible quality control within cooee. The latest episode in this continuing pattern is to be found in the in camera items of the current minutes. We quote:

“That Council appoint WM Loud (Aust) Pty Ltd ACN. 005 711 222 as the contractor under Contract No. 2011.047 Beech Street Car Park Rehabilitation & Associated Landscaping Works at Princes Park, Beech Street Car park, Caulfield for the sum of $476,675.10 (GST incl) in accordance with the terms tendered.” 

Instead of frugality we appear to be experiencing major extravagance. Half a million dollars for ‘landscaping’  and ‘rehabilitation’ for a car park that was redone less than 4 years ago! Anyone who cares to wander down to Princes Park will undoubtedly come away scratching their heads and asking “What’s wrong with the carpark as it is?” 

When residents are repeatedly told that rates have to go up, and that various programs are in jeopardy because there is not enough money to go round, then the decision to spend half a million dollars on a carpark that was recently done is extraordinary. This only serves to raise further questions about the management, priorities, and common sense of our councillors and administrators.

 

May 2, 2011

What Petty & Devious Games We Play!!!!

Posted by gleneira under GE Council Meeting(s), GE Service Performance
[12] Comments 

The minutes for last Wednesday’s Council Meeting are now up. We wish to direct readers’ attention to the Right of Reply by Penhalluriack, and the verbal response provided a little later by Newton to Penhalluriack’s Request for a Report. Two things in particular stand out

  • Newton’s little speech is immaculately punctuated
  • Penhalluriack’s Right of Reply is almost unintelligible BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF ADEQUATE PUNCTUATION.

Now we find it impossible to believe that if Newton’s words can be sensibly recorded, that the same privilege should not be extended to Cr. Penhalluriack. If two people typed up and edited these minutes, then person Number 1 would definitely pass his primary school. Person Number 2 is in bad need of remediation. However, we suspect that the motive for such discrepancy has nothing to do with education and knowledge of punctuation. It would appear to again be deliberate. Please note the following:

Newton – 6 commas and 7 fullstops in 127 words

Penhalluriack – 3 commas in 535 words Plus the absence of inverted commas, apostrophes, etc.

We’ve copied the two speeches directly from the minutes. Readers, make up your own minds!

NEWTON: “In relation to Item 11.1 on tonight’s Agenda, Requests for Reports. Firstly, in October 2010 Council sought a report on, to the best of my recollection, every meeting with MRC and Trustees. That report was submitted to the Council Meeting of, to the best of my recollection, the 2 November 2010. The resolution was at that meeting to note the report.

To the best of my recollection that was unanimous. To the best of my recollection the Mover was Cr Penhalluriack. Since November 2010 the only contact I’ve had with the MRC or Trustees has been in implementation of Council resolutions. During the last two years I have never exercised the CEO’s delegated power in relation to the MRC or Trustees.”

PENHALLURIACK: “On the front page of the local Leader in an article ‘Mulch to fume about’ I think Cr Hyams suggests it should really be mulch ado about nothing I’m mentioned in it and it says I may have a Conflict of Interest because I sell mulch and similar products in my business. 

This issue was addressed by the Municipal Inspectors different terms same issues and it was also addressed by me directly to the Audit Committee in my submission to the Audit Committee to ask them to investigate the mulch sheds. 

I do not believe there is any Conflict of Interest whatsoever and had I thought there was I would have not raised the issue as I have with the Council. 

The article goes on to say I raised concerns about the disease a form of pneumonia then it tells you how much of course the independent assessment cost and the independent assessment found that levels of bacteria and fungi in the air were not elevated and there was no negative test results to indicate any current health risk according to a Council report. What the expert report didn’t do was analyse the mulch it would have cost ten percent of the amount and the situation when they did their testing was that the mulch shed had been effectively emptied so there was not dust in the air whatsoever. The mulch at the back of the shed was damp moist composted and not likely to spread into the atmosphere generally certainly maybe as an aerosol within the mulch shed itself but not around the back of the mulch shed where the testing was done. Now it’s erm, I’m quoted as saying I’m concerned about the community safety not about whether I sell mulch or not it’s next to a school and next to a children’s playground. The literature I’ve seen anything within two hundred metres should be carefully monitored. I say the shed costing one hundred and sixty thousand dollars was built at the current site in 2009. The shed unfortunately was badly designed right from the start because when the testing was done the mulch in that shed had been there for two years. Mulch when it is produced commercially for customers be they commercial customers or free customers is pasteurised. The Australian Standard says that mulch should be pasteurised. 

The selective quotations from the Leader are a good example of very poor reporting. They quote the report, no negative test results. They don’t say that the report also said exposure to shredded mulch can carry a risk to exposure of various fungi, yeasts and moulds and bacteria including legionella. They don’t say that the mulch was not pasteurised as it should be to accord with the Australian Standard AS4454-2003. 

What they don’t say is that a community wide outbreak of legionnaires disease occurred in Pas De Calaise, France from November 2003 to January 2004 and of the eighty six laboratory confirmed cases eighteen were fatal. 

Council voted on this matter they voted responsibly when they knew all of the facts and I believe the article in the Leader is misleading and false and needs to be criticised at this Council Meeting by me.”

 

April 30, 2011

The Facts & Nothing But The Facts!

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

We have received a copy of the $5,000 consultant’s report into the now closed mulch facility in Glen Huntly Park. In recent days there has been much publicity and reaction to this closure with allegations of ‘conflict of interest’ against Cr. Penhalluriack. It really seems that the response has in large part been an orchestrated attempt to either discredit Penhalluriack, or create a neat diversionary tactic from what is a far bigger issue for the residents of Glen Eira – the C60 and the complete acquiescence of this council to the will of the MRC. It also just happens to be Cr Penhalluriack who has been the chief opponent of the MRC (and council) in this whole ‘negotiation’.  So we ask: is the current furore mere coincidence or deliberate? If the latter, then by whom? Who has most to gain by discrediting Penhalluriack is the question that needs answering!

We’ve also written previously about the whole saga and the important sequence of events (See: https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2011/04/09/how-good-is-newtons-alibi-part-2/.  To reiterate:

  1. Newton is responsible for ensuring the complete health and safety of his work force and residents
  2. Newton had the consultant’s first draft on his desk for at least 12 days before it was handed over to the audit committee. The Audit Committee (comprising Lipshutz (6 years straight) and the ‘evergreen’ Gibbs and McLean (12/13 years straight) basically did nothing.
  3. Why the need for several versions of this report? Was anything altered between version 1 and version 2? If so, why?
  4. Why did councillors have to ‘request’ a copy of the report instead of it being distributed to all immediately – especially since the report did recommend that Council take specific actions to ameliorate the potential risks?
  5. Who was responsible for the placement of the mulch heap at Glen Huntly park in the first place? Why didn’t Council’s Health Section recognise the potential dangers and veto such placement? Why did it take Penhalluriack’s persistence to finally initiate a scientific consultant’s report only after two months of his badgering the Audit Committee? Surely risk management needs to be acted upon immediately?
  6. Why has Newton not provided councillors with a copy (if it exists) of the Adcock (Dept of Health) advice? Was this in fact a real ‘report’ or ‘advice’, or simply a phone conversation? Again, we remind readers that this very same Department of health has on its website the following statement: Legionellae are ubiquitous in the environment. They are often isolated from water and wet areas in the natural environment such as creeks, hot springs, seawater, woodchips, mulch and soil. Potting mix is often colonised with Legionella species….”
  7. Why were graphic photographs ‘accidentally’ omitted from Newton’s response to Penhalluriack. This is not the first time that ‘selective editing’ has occurred!
  8. How ‘intellectually dishonest’ is the sign that was subsequently placed over the now defunct mulch facility? The intent was obviously to blame councillors.
  9. Why is Penhalluriack copping all the flack, since the vote was 7 to 2 – that means that at least another 6 councillors were persuaded by his arguments and evidence!
  10. Why should the Leader suddenly feature this story on its front page, when as we’ve stated previously, there has been a heap of much more important news happening in Glen Eira. Who also put 3AW onto the story today – all primed with the Darren Cooksley’s of this world to ‘have a go’ at Penhalluriack. Serendipity, or an orchestrated campaign?
  11. Residents should be more concerned with the fact that a tin shed, and an ineffective sprinkler system is cited as costing $160,000. Tenderers and other contrctors must be laughing their heads off at the cost/benefit analyses that this administration runs. Seems like it’s money for jam!

Finally, the report itself. For those who can’t be bothered reading the entire report, we’ve highlighted some of the important findings. They are quoted verbatim –

“Based on a literature review of the health and safety risks associated with composts, soil conditioners and mulches, and the warnings applied to commercially available mulch, users may still be potentially exposed to bacteria and fungi, despite the favourable air quality testing results.”

“the current warning signage was assessed and is not adequate, hence additional warning signage is required’.

‘Exposure to shredded mulch, potting mix, or compost, including general garden compost and commercially available products can carry a risk of exposure to various fungi (yeast and moulds) and bacteria, including Legionella”.

‘Longbeachae is the strain of legionella most commonly associated with composts, mulch and potting mix” (compare this statement with the supposed ‘advice’ from Adcock as claimed by Newton!)

“Some commercially available mulch products are not considered to present a risk of exposure to Legionella where they have undergone a pasteurisation process. However, mnay commercially available composts and mulch products present a risk of exposing users to fungi and bacteria for eg. Legionella.”

“The material stored at Glen Huntly Park is not pasteurised or treated and therefore has the potential to exposure workers, users and the general public in the surrounding area to elevated levels of bacteria and fungi above background. Potentially most at risk groups are members  of the (public) who collect and use the mulch material for gardening, the compact truck loader driver and other council workers who regularly work with the mulch material’

“Bulk sampling of the mulch stock pile for legionella was not carried out as this is a difficult test to conduct and based on literature and other information sources there is certainly a potential for this to exist, although it may quite likely not show up in sampling. Air sampling for Legionella is not considered an effective method of sampling due to the short time span of the bacterium in air.” (NOTE: THE ACTUAL MULCH HEAP ITSELF WAS NOT TESTED)

So, what does all this mean? We conclude:

  • Correct risk management practices were not carried out in a timely fashion
  • Poor decision making as to location means that attention must be diverted from this central question
  • Penhalluriack has been the target of a deliberate smear campaign
  • The consultant’s report conflicts with the ‘advice’ Newton claims to have received from Adcock
  • Penhalluriack’s coloured photos (conveniently omitted at first) clearly show the dust spray and the dangerous incline that the loader is working at. Both situations should not have been allowed to occur.
  • Why should something as simple as a tin shed cost the earth?
  • The reluctance to disseminate important information to all councillors represents a failure of good governance
  • here’s the missing photo – in glorious technicolour!

 

April 24, 2011

More Agenda Items of Note

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

The various ‘Records of Assembly’, brief as they are, still contain some fascinating items. One that really caught our eye was – “At conclusion of Assembly of Councillors a Councillor only meeting took place with a Note Taker present.” We simply ask – who was the Notetaker? Was the Notetaker really ‘independent’ as per a contract? How much did this little tete a tete cost ratepayers if the Notetaker was an ‘outsider’ under contract? What was the purpose of this meeting? Could it have anything to do with Newton’s contract?

Then from the same meeting we get this: ‘Cr Penhalluriack – a Court Order to remove a Plane tree in Murrumbeena’. Given that this is a Court Order, rather than a VCAT order, we can only assume that another court case has taken place and that Council has been thumped. So the question again is – how much did this cost ratepayers? Were barristers, QCs or merely a solicitor involved? Did it need to go to court? Could council have averted court proceedings in any shape or form?

Two items that appear under the in camera discussions deserve comment. One relates to another sporting oval resurfacing for ‘more than $350,000’ at Lord Reserve. We wonder what the final cost will actually be? There’s also this tit bit under ‘personnel’ and Occupational Health and Safety Compliance? Again, we can only speculate, but has this anything to do with worker safety at the mulch heap, or possibly another issue altogether? The real question is will ratepayers be footing any bills or payouts on this little number?

Finally, Glen Huntly’s comment deserves taking up. $7.5 million has now been forecast for the ‘development’ of Booran Rd. Reservoir. Given that no plans have as yet surfaced (officially) for this site, then how can any sum be assigned and what is this money for? What are the mega plans that have possibly already been concocted – once again, without community input?

 

April 17, 2011

The Mulch Fiasco

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

The sign placed at the now defunct mulch heap attempts to lay the blame for the closure of this facility squarely at the feet of councillors. What the sign does not disclose is the reasoning behind councillors’ decision – namely, that it represented a risk to both employees and the public. No matter how remote this risk may have been, councillors acted appropriately – in stark contrast to the audit committee and the CEO in failing to provide the scientific consultant’s report to ALL councillors at the earliest opportunity and initiating action.

In the minutes of 3rd March 1997, a report written by Newton states that it was ‘decided that it would be desirable to have a comprehensive set of written policies on all areas(s) of Council activity’. He goes on to state that “in most cases policy ought to be approved by Council. This would give clear authority to the policy being laid down. It would also require reconsideration by the Council itself if the policy is to be amended (good corporate governance)”.  So, it is Council, who is to set policy, or to change policy. Under the same item, the ‘Occupational Health and Safety Policy’ was voted on. It states:

“Management has a duty to provide and maintain so far as is practicable, a working environment that is safe and without risk to health. All staff have a duty to report and assist management to correct unsafe conditions”.

“…the organisation makes the following commitment – We will not knowingly engage in any activity or provide any service unless we can perform the activity or provide the service safely”.

“This policy recognises that the health and safety of all employees of the City of Glen Eira is the responsibility of Management…..”

One of the tasks and procedures adopted was to ‘Promote proactive risk identification, assessment and control programmes that embrace the principles of effective risk control”.

It should never have taken the persistence of one councillor to get things done. It also should never have been ignored by the Audit Committee, and it should never have had to come to a vote at council meeting. The onus was on management to ensure that the mulch heap was 100% safe. The fact that it was even moved into an area adjacent to a playground, school, and public park is beyond belief. As Mr. Newton stated so many years ago – the blame must be laid at management’s feet!

 

April 8, 2011

Hansard: The Sport of Kings?

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, GE Service Performance
[4] Comments 

Melbourne Racing Club: chief executive officer 

Ms HENNESSY (Altona) — My question is to the Minister for Racing. I refer the minister to comments made by Mr Alasdair Robertson, CEO of the Melbourne Racing Club, at a government media event yesterday, including sexist and offensive comments he made comparing members of the media to prostitutes and hit men, and I ask: did the minister condemn these comments at the time and does he believe they appropriately promote the image of racing in Victoria? 

Dr NAPTHINE (Minister for Racing) — I thank the honourable member for her question. As members are aware, racing is an important industry in the state of Victoria. It is a multibillion-dollar industry and provides employment for over 70 000 Victorians. Yesterday I was in the grounds of Parliament House promoting what is going to be a significant event for the racing industry this weekend. I was in the company of representatives of the Arab horse group; representatives of Sheikh Hamdan Bin Rashid Al Maktoum, the Deputy Ruler of Dubai and United Arab Emirates Minister for Finance; and representatives of the Ambassador of the United Arab Emirates. We were promoting the inaugural Shadwell Arabian Mile race, on Saturday at Caulfield Racecourse. There was a media event to promote that race, which is an important race because it will be the first time that Arab horses will have raced on Australian racetracks under the Australian rules of racing. It is an important issue. 

At that conference questions were raised with me about not only that event but also other matters to do with racing. Subsequently there were issues raised about some comments made at that event. I can assure the house that I did not hear the comments made at that event. I was not aware of them in any way, shape or form.

Ms Allan interjected.

The SPEAKER — Order! The member for Bendigo East!

Dr NAPTHINE — Just take your time.

Honourable members interjecting.

The SPEAKER — Order! The minister was giving a serious answer to a serious question. I ask members of the opposition and members of the government to refrain from interjecting. 

Dr NAPTHINE — I was advised this morning that the Melbourne Racing Club official who made these comments has apologised for what he described as his stupid and inappropriate comments. An article that appeared online at http://www.smh.com.au at 12.43 p.m. on 7 April reports: ‘In the heat of the moment I made a stupid comment and I’ve actually openly apologised for it this morning’, Mr Robertson told radio 3AW. 

Of course I do not agree with those comments. Indeed I believe those comments were totally inappropriate and totally wrong and should be condemned. There is no place for those sorts of comments in racing in Victoria. Anybody who suggests that the racing industry of Victoria is at all sexist is absolutely wrong. People of both genders have served the racing industry well in Victoria and across Australia at all levels, whether as jockeys, as trainers or as officials. Males and females have served the racing industry well.

It was an inappropriate comment for which the person responsible has apologised. I did not hear the comments at the time, and I condemn them, but I say at the same time that this should not distract in any way, shape or form from what will be a great event on Saturday — the Shadwell Arabian Mile. It is the first time we will have Arabian horses racing on a Victorian racetrack. It is absolutely vital and important for the future of this state.

Honourable members interjecting.

 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 The following address highlights again the difference between Glen Eira and other councils. Readers should remember that Lipshutz was against the introduction of an alcohol free zone in Bentleigh, since it would necessitate more staff for the currently already overworked 1000 staff, and in his view, the police were against it! 

City of Kingston: alcohol-free zones  

Mr LIM (Clayton) — I rise to congratulate the City of Kingston for introducing alcohol-free zones. As a progressive city, Kingston has always been at the forefront of introducing and maintaining safety measures to provide a secure environment for its residents to live, shop and socialise. The recent introduction of two alcohol-free zones in Clayton South and Clarinda, in the electorate of Clayton, is testament to the determination of the City of Kingston to improve its family-friendly and kid-friendly culture, as well as its residents’ sense of security. 

There has been a growing trend of binge drinking in general, as well as people drinking outside their local bottle shops. Local businesses and community groups have long supported the establishment of alcohol-free zones to address irresponsible drinking behaviour. Residents and beach users in Kingston have also submitted petitions to the council, calling for the further restriction of alcohol consumption. The City of Kingston’s decision to introduce alcohol-free zones means that consumption of alcohol will be prohibited in designated blocks. Consumption of alcohol will be regulated and controlled in those public places. I have confidence that this policy will play a crucial role in curbing the unhealthy trend of binge drinking and related antisocial behaviour. More importantly, this policy will help make local residents feel more secure and make Kingston a great place to live, work and raise a family.

 

March 28, 2011

Where’s the Business Acumen?

Posted by gleneira under GE Service Performance
[9] Comments 

How good is Glen Eira at running commercial enterprises? How good are their business plans? How good is their homework? How comprehensive is their analyses of current commercial climates and how good are they in estimating where a dollar could be made? Looking at history, we have to conclude that their track record on commercial endeavours is exceedingly poor. GESAC is starting to sound like it might be the latest white elephant.

Most landlords (and that’s what council is when we consider GESAC) will have ironclad contracts in place. They simply hire out space and it is up to the tenant to outfit the place, provide staff, and do whatever is necessary to make a buck. The owner is simply there to ensure that everything is safe and above board.

GESAC has been calling for ‘expressions of interest’ for potential tenants for several months. The propaganda machine has been in full swing. We’re told that everything is on budget, that 5 zillion tons of concrete have been laid, etc.etc. What we haven’t been told is how many commercial operators have actually shown any interest whatsoever? And of those that might have applied, how many have been deemed as ‘suitable’? This Saturday’s Age Tender advertisement has given us further cause to doubt the business acumen of Glen Eira. Here’s the ad –

“Reference No.: 2011.034
Provision of Gymnasium Equipment to Glen Eira Sports and Aquatic Centre

Requirement: Provision of a suite of gymnasium fitness equipment including installation, ongoing maintenance and centre staff training.”

One very feasible conclusion that could be drawn from this ad, is –

  • There has not been any expressions of interest (or at least not considered viable)
  • If, as a last resort, council is contemplating ‘managing’ this itself, then what’s the cost?
  • Does this mean that instead of rent coming in, council will be forking out to guarantee that all premises are occupied?
  • Where will this added ‘cost’ be itemised in budget figures, and will the final figures really reveal the truth? Will we still be told that the ‘cost’ is $41.2 million?
  • How well did the ‘business plan’ foresee the possibility of commercial disinterest?
  • How many actual ‘expessions of interest’ have there been overall? Are we dealing with something that will end up costing the community millions and millions simply because planning, strategising, and other considerations are proving to be inaccurate? Who should take the blame for this?

The bottom line is clear. Organisations only go to tender, and pay for services themselves, when they have to – that is, when no-one is interested! Of course we could be wrong in all of the above, as so many Anonymous responses tell us. So, what’s everyone elses take on that tender advertisement?

 

March 18, 2011

How Many Lawyers Does it Take to Stuff Up?

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

Forgive the levity of this post, but we thought we might have some fun with our legal eagle councillors and all of those working in compliance, corporate counsel, and so on. We could even be talking 50 well paid staff and councillors. So, how come they can’t get a simple thing like one sentence correct? 

We cite the opening sentence from Section 4.8.2 of the Councillor Code of Conduct which reads

“Councillors’ decisions are made in Statutory Council Meetings”. 

In the first place, councillors DO NOT MAKE DECISIONS – only Council does that! In the second place, the only decisions made at ‘statutory’ meetings are the election of the Mayor, and possibly membership/delegations on committees. Ordinary council meetings are not ‘statutory’ meetings – they are simply Council Meetings! but we guess the use of such language is imposing, impressive, obfuscating, and in the end just plain wrong! And we didn’t go to law school either.

 

March 17, 2011

Is There a Cover Up?

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

At council meeting on Tuesday night, under ‘Councillor Questions’ Penhalluriack asked Newton a question related to the Glenhuntly mulch storage facility. In a long preamble to the actual question Penhalluriack outlined the following:

  • Newton prides himself on correct ‘risk management’ procedures & policies.
  • Scientific Consultants were called in to evaluate the public health risk at the Glen Huntly depot
  • Part of their findings was that legionella ‘and fungi’ were presenting some risk to workers and the general public
  • Several recommendations were made to reduce the risk – ie sprinklers, training, protective gloves/clothing, the importance of washing hands and signage alerting the public

The question asked of Newton had several parts:

  • Why did Council ‘twice deny that there was any danger to the community’s health’ when he had twice asked about it
  • Why did he have to go to the Audit committee and raise the question for a third time before anything was done?
  • ‘why hasn’t (the report) been circulated to councillors?’
  • Were areas ‘adjacent to the mulch bin’ also analysed such as the school, playground, car park areas?
  • Penhalluriack also sought an explanation as to why it appears that none of the recommendations of the report have been carried out?

Newton took the question on Notice

COMMENTS:  Penhalluriack’s question makes it abundantly clear that information within this Council is ‘filtered’ and that only a select few are privy to information that could have major repercussions on the entire community and council’s liability. We remind readers of the composition of the audit committee (especially Lipshutz). If the audit committee did have this information, then why wasn’t it distributed to all councillors according to best practice and council’s audit committee charter? Why does it take a councillor 3 requests before any response is forthcoming? Why does it take months and months for any remediation of what might potentially be a public health risk? And the most important question: Why the cover up?

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »