October 24, 2011

Financial Accountability: Are Councillors Doing Their Jobs?

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

Last council meeting featured the quarterly financial report. As per usual, it was accepted in glowing terms, especially by Lipshutz. We cannot help wondering however, whether councillors even read these reports, or if they do read them, whether they actually query any of the figures and statements. We wish to highlight the following figures which are buried within this report:

Packer Park concept plan – $370,000
Building Design Elsternwick CCC – $740,000

Surely even an architect of Frank Lloyd Wright’s calibre would not cost three quarters of a million dollars? But it gets even murkier. The budget of just several months ago contained this item – “Building Design and Community Consultation for Elsternwick Child Care Centre $250k”. We therefore ask:

• Why is consultation included together with ‘building design’ – consultation is a direct Council expense – it is not part of infrastructure’.
• Why in the space of 3 months has the expenditure on this item suddenly blown out by over half a million dollars?
• Has the budget figure been ‘understated’ in order to get passed and now, suddenly, the true cost may be emerging? Is this common practice for most items – especially GESAC?

We also draw readers’ attention to this one liner – “Funding of $371K for Bailey Reserve playground relocation (Council considered this relocation as part of the approval for the car parking extension for GESAC on 19 July 2011). Please note that the funding for this relocation is expected to be offset from savings on the GESAC construction expenditure.”

Apart from the sheer staggering cost of removing and relocating – with some additional play equipment – how can this in all conscience amount to such a figure? We also note the language (“expected”) and wonder whether some time down the track councillors, if they bother to question anything will simply be told – “oh sorry, this was only expected and sadly didn’t eventuate!”

There are numerous other items in this ‘report’ which are practically indecipherable – not because one needs an accounting degree to make head or tail out of the figures, but simply the lack of detail, the lack of explanation, and the overall ‘imprecision’ of what our money is being spent on. If councils are meant to be accountable to their communities, then clear, plain English statements are essential. But most importantly, councillors must read, question, and demand answers. Are they doing this we wonder?

October 22, 2011

Only A Resolution Away!

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

From the Gold Coast Council Meeting of 8th August, 2011.

13.9 CENSORING OR INTERVENING WITH COUNCILLORS MAIL

LG211/-/-

RESOLUTION G11.0808.025 Moved Cr Clarke Seconded Cr Young

That the Memorandum be deemed non confidential except for those parts deemed by the Chief Executive Officer to remain confidential in accordance with sections 171(3) and 200(9) of the Local Government Act 2009.

Council notes with concern the allegations published in the local media last Thursday in regard to the intervention of e-mails being received by Councillors (including generic, divisional office email accounts) and resolves that under no circumstances can the Chief Executive Officer or any administrative staff, intervene or censor any mail, be it electronic or standard, for Councillors, as from today, with the exception of any such action or intervention that is specifically requested by an aggrieved or concerned Councillor and that the CEO report back on the appropriate process for this to occur.

That the CEO report back on the process to identify junk mail, “MIMEsweeper” and spam mail within programming software in Councillors’ computers and how to enhance such programs to allow Councillors to determine when and how to deal with offensive emails and that the current spam filters stay in place.

That all policies appropriate to the receipt and distribution of electronic mail and posted mail to and from the Mayor and Councillors be revised to reflect the above policy position. “

Vote was carried eleven (11) to four (4).

October 21, 2011

Shambolic, Inept & Inexcusable!

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

Our urging for the publication of the October 4^thSpecial Committee Meeting Minutes has paid off. They are now available on Council’s website. Here is the important parts of these pseudo minutes –

PRESENTATION OF CONFIDENTIAL ITEMS

Crs Hyams/Lipshutz

That the meeting be now closed to members of the public under Section 89(2) (a) ‘personnel’ and (d) contractual’ of the Local Government Act 1989 which relates to the review of the performance of the Chief Executive Officer

The Mayor called for a vote on the Motion. Five Councillors voted and three Councillors declined to vote.

The Mayor again called for a vote on the Motion. Five Councillors voted and three Councillors declined to vote.

DIVISION

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

FOR AGAINST

Cr Esakoff Cr Forge

Cr Hyams

Cr Lipshutz

Cr Lobo

Cr Magee

Cr Pilling

Cr Tang

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

We are utterly speechless at the total shambles that these minutes reveal – from both councillors and from whoever is responsible for the taking and dissemination of these minutes. Again, we’ll go through this in chronological order –

The motion was moved in open council. Hence IT IS NOT PART OF THE CONFIDENTIAL ITEMS as stated!
Councillors are legally bound to vote – they CANNOT abstain.
Esakoff again does not know correct procedure. She cannot call for a Division until the voting has been recorded. No vote is recorded in these minutes.

COMMENT

This is getting worse and worse. We have a situation where the Chair does not seem to know the rules (even though she’s been mayor 3 times) and councillors who also do not know what is legally expected of them. As for the minute taker, perhaps he should be given as birthday present the State version of Standing Orders & Meeting Procedures?

October 20, 2011

Vale Democracy, Accountability – Hail Secrecy!

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

Tonight’s Special Committee Meeting continued the tradition of secrecy within Glen Eira council. After five minutes the gallery was cleared for in camera discussions on the following agenda items – which finally made it onto council’s website this afternoon. (Please note that the minutes of the first meeting are still wafting about but not in the public domain!)

This time round, the agenda items have really outdone themselves – they read:

“That the meeting be now closed to members of the public under Section 89(2) of the Local Government Act 1989 in order to consider any confidential business.

6.1 under s89 (2) (a) ‘personnel’ and (d) ‘contractual’ of the Local Government Act which relates to the review of the performance of the Chief Executive Officer.

6.2 under s89 (2) (f) ‘legal advice’ which relates to Right of Reply.

6.3 under s89 (2) (f) ‘legal advice’ in order to consider a Council resolution.

6.4 under s89 (2) (f) ‘legal advice’ in order to consider seeking further legal advice.

6.5 under s89 (2) (a) ‘personnel’ in order to consider OH&S matters.”

Some very strange goings on here. For example:

CEO (re)appointment is integrally linked to the Performance Appraisal. These should not be linked and we hazard a guess that no other council does link the 2 issues.
OH& S has again reared its ugly head and is playing a pivotal role in the appointment process since we assume this relates to Newton’s bullying claims and the exclusion of Penhalluriack.
Of further concern is the multiple ‘legal advice’ items. Are they ‘separate matters’ or related? Are ratepayers therefore looking at another possible $15,000 gifted to lawyers?
The farce is even further accentuated with the ‘legal advice in order to consider seeking further legal advice’. This line could have come straight out of Monty Python for its sheer anarchic insanity. Oh to be a lawyer in the employ of Glen
Eira City Council – one is laughing all the way to the bank!
Seems like they can’t even decide if a Council resolution is legal or not! Surely this should have been nutted out BEFORE the resolution was put and carried? We again wonder if this item is related to the legality of the first Special Committee and
hence the need to revoke the delegation powers and substitute them with the current one? As Lipshutz and Hyams keep telling us – ‘a little housekeeping’ – except that the costs keep adding up for ratepayers!
And one little issue that again won’t be made public – are any of these legal eagles part of Maddocks perhaps? Will Tang actually deign to declare a (potential) conflict of interest? We remind folks that in the past he has declared a conflict of interest on a Monash matter since he is merely one out of 40,000 students who attended the university! Should we expect consistency though?
Finally, facts suggest that dealing with Newton becomes a very, very expensive business. We still don’t know how much the 2005 schemozzle cost ratepayers, and the figure for 2009 is roughly $40,000. How much this current saga, with all the investigations of bullying, lawyers, and now more lawyers will eventually cost, is anyone’s guess.

Before we list the night’s events we believe it is worth pointing out that all motions were passed unanimously. One has to wonder at all these sudden ‘conversions’ when the vote at last week’s meeting to create this committee was 5 to 4! It’s good to see that public displays of ‘unity’ are valued far more highly perhaps than consistency, and dare we suggest, integrity! But as they say, a week’s a long time in politics.

The night’s events (in chronological order):

Motion to accept (non-public) minutes
Kerfuffle about apologies (Lipshutz absent). Tang played lawyer and brought up a ‘point of procedure’ and insisted that a formal motion be put to accept Lipshutz’s absence – after the meeting had again moved on. Esakoff realised her mistake and backtracked to this motion. Incidentally, dear readers, what is a ‘point of procedure’ – does it even exist? or did Tang really mean ‘point of order’? And are these councillors running so scared of legal retribution that they are determined to dot every ‘i’ and cross every ‘t’ – just in case?
Motion to move in camera. Gallery cleared. World record of less than 5 minutes!

October 20, 2011

To Phone Or Not To Phone….That Is The Question!

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

What a sad, sad, state of affairs we appear to have come to in Glen Eira! And it’s not just for this last year either. Below is a comparative table of councillor telephone expenses for Glen Eira and 2 of our neighbouring councils. Kingston figures are for one quarter – hence they would need to be quadrupled to attain an approximation of the full year’s expenditure.

GLEN EIRA 1^st Dec.,2009 – 1^st Nov.2010			STONNINGTON (1 year to December 2010)		KINGSTON July-Sept. 2010
Penhalluriack		$146.-	Athanasopoulos	$1975.99	Staikos	$857.55
Whiteside (to30th July,2010)	$580.-		Chandler	$1616.38	Athanasopoulos	$489.96
Hyams	$140.-		Hannon	$678.64	Peulich	$907.94
Magee	$696.-		Hindle	$1731.97	Brownlees	$324.54
Esakoff	$69.-		Nicholls	$567.92	West	$324.54
Lipshutz	$32.-		O’Shea	$3202.68	Dundas	$446.12
Pilling	$223.-		Sehr	$1066.51	Bauer	$916.48
Lobo	$255.-		Smith	$4797.46	Ronke	$324.54
Tang	$729.-		Ullin	$2256.19	Shewan	$685.85
Forge (From 31^st August 2010)	$16.-

So what conclusions may be drawn from the above statistics? –

Are Glen Eira councillors doing their jobs? Maybe an investigation should be undertaken to determine why these councillors’ expenses are miniscule compared to their colleagues? It is incomprehensible that Lipshutz should only have a mobile phone bill of ~$30 per year (and the same for the previous year). Does this mean that no resident rings him? That councillors as a whole receive very few phone calls? That these aren’t answered?
Or is the truth that these councillors simply refuse to use council provided phones for fear of possible tracking devices? That they don’t want super sleuth officers to know whom they’ve been talking with, much less what they’ve been talking about? That the fear of god has been put into them following the phone business of the past?

Whatever the truth is, other councils just do not have this problem. When others are spending literally thousands and thousands on their mobile phones, with not a whimper from anyone, then Glen Eira stands out like a beacon. There are only two logical possibilities here – either councillors are not doing their jobs as representatives of the people, or they don’t like the possible surveillance that using council supplied phones might imply. We have been told numerous times that various councillors have directed residents not to ring them on their council phones, nor to email them on council email accounts. Why? If there is trust, respect, and a sound working relationship, then there wouldn’t be the need to hide conversations and correspondence.

It’s just a great pity then that when a public question on this issue of surveillance was raised at the last council meeting and responses invited from each councillor (admittedly on emails), all but Penhalluriack sat there in silence. Silence is consent councillors! And look where that’s got us!

October 19, 2011

Has Anything Changed?

Posted by gleneira under GE Governance
[7] Comments

All from the Whelan Report –

The CEO allows Councillors to have access to Directors but not management staff, to protect the organisation from negative influence at that level.

The CEO and Directors are, in reality, the strategic planners for the Council. Councillors have tended to focus on the “micro” issues.

Councillors do not appreciate what constitutes good governance and do not understand their roles and responsibilities. Further in his view, they do not provide effective community representation.

Some residents met the Inspectors about particular issues, such as planning permits and child care centres. Criticism in these cases was often directed at both Council and the administration, usually about lack of appreciation of their particular concerns, together with inadequate communication and consultation processes.

Conversely, the Councillors have difficulty in exercising their major responsibilities of strategic planning, policy making and strategic decision making.

At a Council meeting held on 29 April 2002 the CEO raised various issues relating to occupational health and safety. He alleged that the Council had failed to provide him with a safe working environment that was “without risk to his health”.

The CEO argued that he had been harassed by a letter written by Crs Grossbard and Erlich to the Mayor and Councillors, the then Office of Local Government and himself on 4 April 2002

The Council sought legal advice from Macquarie Lawyers and Strategists and was advised on 1 July 2002 that the “…Council has breached its statutory obligation to provide a working environment that is without risk to the CEO”.

The legal advice proposed four recommendations, including:- adopting a Code of Conduct for Councillors in the form of a Local Law with sanctions; and providing a process for resolving disputes between the Council and the CEO

On 9 February 2003, the CEO notified all Councillors that he had initiated a dispute between the Council and himself.

On 5 May 2003, following the elections in March 2003, the Council resolved to:-

a. “Seek legal advice concerning the Notification of Dispute and related matters pursuant to the employment contract between the Council and the CEO of the City of Glen Eira.

b. Authorise the Mayor to engage the legal firm Arnold Bloch Leibler, 333 Collins Street, Melbourne and to brief this firm immediately.

c. Authorise expenditure up to $8,000.

d. Require a further resolution of Council if expenditure is likely to exceed that specified in paragraph c.

e. Require Arnold Bloch Leibler and Council to maintain confidentiality on these matters.”

It sets out at some length, the circumstances in which the services of the CEO may be terminated. Further, it refers to a number of complaints made to the Ombudsman on 14 January 2003 by Crs Grossbard and Erlich about issues concerning the manner in which the CEO is performing his role

The Inspectors found no correspondence on Council files between the Council and ABL.

Cr Goudge said he wasn’t aware that advice on termination was to be sought from ABL but he was not surprised, given the political nature of relationships at the time and the “obstructive” behaviour of the CEO

Cr Grossbard claimed that Mr Bramham of Macquarie Lawyers from whom Council obtained the advice, was not independent because he was involved with the Council in arranging a termination agreement with a previous CEO (Ms Douglas) and was on friendly terms with the then Mayor, Cr Kennedy

Cr Erlich said that he was involved with Cr Grossbard in providing a submission to the Ombudsman concerning the CEO which, in hindsight, he was “ashamed” about. According to Cr Erlich, Cr Grossbard gave information to ABL because “… he did not get on with Andrew Newton

“There is ample evidence of repeated unreasonable behaviour directed towards one or more individual Councillors or a group of Councillors. This has created a risk to health and safety. The unreasonable behaviour means behaviour that a reasonable person, having regard to all the circumstances, would expect to victimise, humiliate, undermine or threaten.

She said the CEO was not “forthcoming in providing her with answers”.

She alleged that Paul Burke (DCR), “…is inappropriately crafting the outcome….” and “…in order to create a false impression of what has actually taken place…” .

“he is an empire builder”;

“he does not run a democratic organisation”; and he has developed “a culture of intimidation”.

October 18, 2011

Censorship In The Guise Of ‘Harassment’

Posted by gleneira under GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance
[21] Comments

Last Council Meeting saw one public question declared inappropriate on the grounds of ‘harassment’. We’ve just received a copy of this question. It asked:

“1. The last REC meeting determined that the situation with unauthorised sporting groups and in particular the Frisbee group would be monitored. Under this monitoring regime: (a) were any further breaches of the Local Law observed? Was any action taken as a result? (b) will council publish its findings on this continued monitoring?

2. Does any frisbee group have a current ground allocation?”

That such a question could in any shape or form be considered ‘harassment’ is beyond belief. It is every resident’s right to ask about the outcomes resulting from a council resolution. The Recreation Advisory committee recommended further ‘monitoring’ of the situation. This was accepted by Council. It is now nearly two years that constant ‘monitoring’ is in progress. We assume that such monitoring has taken up officers’ time (and hence part of our rates) and therefore it is in the public interest for any outcomes to be reported back to those who pay for such activities. Residents would like to know what ‘progress’ has been made on the issue and whether the Frisbee group that has continually flouted Local Law 326, (and which has lead to accusations of ‘conflict of interest by Lipshutz and Tang) has in fact applied and gained a ground allocation. To label such a question as harassment again reveals:

the failure of this council to be transparent and upfront about costs, policies, and treating all groups and individuals equally and impartially
the attempt to avoid scrutiny
the attempt to cover up an issue which has been in the spotlight for far too long and remains unresolved
the continued recourse to highly questionable interpretations of meeting procedures
the failure to be accountable and transparent

We challenge this council to finally come clean and to provide an explanation to residents as to why

this question was deemed to be harassment
and why the public should not simply assume that the refusal to answer this question implies that council processes and ‘laws’ are used as tools of convenience whenever uncomfortable questions are asked.

Finally, the central question is: who determined this was ‘harassment’? Esakoff, or did she merely do the bidding of Lipshutz, Hyams and Tang? How many more times will this ruse of ‘harassment’ be used to deflect residents’ questions and maintain the veil of secrecy over so much that goes on in this council?

October 18, 2011

GESAC: The Mess Continues…..

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

Share options bounced at Glen Eira basketball centre

18 Oct 11 @ 07:30am by Jenny Ling

The Glen Eira Warriors and McKinnon Basketball Association told the Leader that chief executive Wayne Bird had recently contacted them to try to fix the council’s handling of the courts contract at the $41.2 million Glen Eira Sports and Aquatic Centre.

The council initially gave the contract to the Warriors in May but, one month later after protests from the McKinnon association, sought legal advice over whether it was legally binding.

Mayor Margaret Esakoff and Deputy Mayor Jamie Hyams refused to comment, including whether they had got advice.

Basketball Victoria operations manager Gerry Glennen, based in Albert Park, confirmed Mr Bird had approached both groups to see if a compromise could be reached.

“But I don’t know … whether that was successful,” he said.

Glen Eira Warriors president Geoff Charnley said the Warriors would not compromise.

“It was suggested to us that we give up weekends and give it to them (McKinnon),” he said.

“We said ‘no, we need the weekends’ … that’s not going to work for us.

“The councillors need to make a decision. Time is marching on, that’s our real concern … it’s (GESAC) going to open soon.”

McKinnon Basketball Association spokesman James Cody said the group was willing to compromise.

“We would rather have some time there than none,” Mr Cody said. “We just want to get the right outcome.

“At the end of the day if we don’t get it, it will be a pain, we’ll just have to manage with another facility.”

October 16, 2011

Secrecy, ‘Stuff Ups’ & Machinations

Posted by gleneira under GE Governance
[13] Comments

The minutes of last council meeting, especially the in camera items, should be preserved in gold. (Uploaded here) They illustrate how meeting procedures are (legal) meeting procedures only when it suits. The minutes also reveal

A divided council where we have the ‘gang’ ramming motions through, and the flip-flopping voting patterns of Pilling
A major stuff up over the creation of the Special Committee the first time around, and the deliberate obfuscation contained in the current minutes. It would take the skill of a cryptologist to make head or tail out of the mess that is now presented as ‘minutes’.
The failure to document fully both calls for Division, actual motions and oucome of any voting.

We will go through these ‘minutes’ in chronological order:

Urgent Business: Esakoff announced that she had 2 items of urgent business in the open section of the October 11th Council Meeting. No motion/explanation as required by law. Public questions were then read out. No motion/vote to change order of items. Meanwhile, twice gagging Penhalluriack in his attempt to raise a point of order. Tang & Hyams inform mayor that a motion is needed for urgent business in camera. Finally put and passed 8 to 1.
Minutes refer to items 10 A (i) – no such item exists!
The motion put by Esakoff/Hyams asks Councillors ONLY TO CONSIDER THE REPLACEMENT – NOT TO ADOPT. In other words, there needed to be two separate motions put and voted on – with names of movers/seconders and result of these separate votes. According to the minutes this did not happen!
The motion refers to a ‘replacement delegation’ and that “The Instrument of Delegation authorised by Council resolution on 20 September 2011 be revoked effective immediately.” Whilst these minutes include the records of assembly for the 20^thSeptember PRE MEETING, and then the 27^th September, there is no mention of any such ‘discussion’, nor the creation of this Special Committee. There is no item listed which could in any shape or form reflect this decision. Again, residents should wonder how accurately the minutes fulfil their legal obligation in noting the topics, or the requisite Section 89(2) items. Instead of an ‘accurate’ and ‘true’ record of meetings we believe these minutes are designed to hide, obfuscate, and maintain the secrecy which is the hallmark of this council.
Why one week after the secret creation of this Special Committee should the delegated power be ‘revoked’ and a new set of powers incorporated – unless there has been a major (and legal?) stuff up?
Most unusual and possibly illegal is the following clause: “The Committee shall attempt to reach all decisions by way of consensus between members”. The Local Government Act is entirely prescriptive on this – voting is mandatory. There is no escape clause which sanctions ‘consensus’. Is this clause included we wonder so that the voting pattern of each councillor does not have to be recorded in the minutes? Another neat sleight of hand perhaps?
The Schedule: again an intriguing piece of work! The inclusion of specific reference to the Occupational Health & Safety Act, 2004 is not only unusual (given that this would be implicit in any event and covers all employees and possibly councillors) but that it is now directly tied into the (re)appointment of the CEO. Why include this, except to ‘legalise’ the exclusion of Penhalluriack perhaps?
We then get this masterful paragraph under ‘Limitations’ – “The Special Committee may by resolution determine to obtain legal advice in relation to matters within its delegation from law firms determined by it from time to time and may nominate one or more of its members to provide instructions and receive communications on behalf of the Committee. Legal fees and disbursements incurred by a nominee must not exceed $5000 (GST exclusive) in respect of any one matter without the prior consent of the Committee”. Does this ‘Limitation’ relate to legal fees in drawing up the contract? Bullying charges? Anyone being sued? What happens if there is more that ‘one matter’ – does this mean that council can spend squillions on lawyers and it’s still all under delegation?

COMPARISON WITH THE 20^TH SEPTEMBER DELEGATION/SCHEDULE

There are some vital changes to the new delegation powers and wording in what is presumably the two schedules. We present them in parallel

October 11^th Version

September 20^th Version

All of Council’s powers, discretions and authorities conferred or imposed by:–
the Local Government Act 1989;-
the Occupational Health and Safety
Act 2004; and –
any other Act, in so far as such legislation has application to
any matter relating to or affecting the employment of the Chief Executive Officer and including the authority to do all things necessary or convenient to be done for or in connection with the performance of those functions, duties and powers.

To exercise Council’s powers, discretions and authorities to perform Council’s functions under the Local Government Act
1989 with respect to all matters involving the Chief Executive
Officer’s Contract including but not limited to his performance review and exercise of Council’s option to renew his Contract of Employment and do all things necessary or convenient to be done for or in connection with the performance of those functions, duties and powers.

Other points of difference:

Esakoff is named as the councillor who called a division, yet NO NAME is recorded for the call of division for the September 20^thmeeting! No motion is printed either!
Lawyers fees are not included in the 20^thSeptember meeting but are under ‘limitations’ for the 11^th October version
Earlier version included Performance Assessment of CEO – now gone from the October version.
Earlier version cited verbatim the terms of the 2009 reappointment (ie council’s ‘option’ to reappoint) – again missing!
Pilling appears to have switched sides and Lobo has aligned himself with ‘the gang’!

COMMENTS

These minutes we believe are perhaps incomplete. There are two Delegations provided, but possibly only 1 full Schedule! Are we therefore to assume that both Schedules are identical? Or what is marked as ‘Schedule’ on page 1329, is in fact NOT the ‘official’ Schedule? If so, then it is a pathetic effort for an important legal document! If on the other hand, it isn’t the official Schedule, then why hasn’t the real one been included in the minutes? And why is it headed ‘Schedule’? Is this simply intended to confuse and hide the truth?

All in all, this entire matter –processes, reporting, and even need for such a committee – has been done in secrecy and without full and upfront disclosure and transparency. We can only speculate as to why there should be the creation and then the almost immediate revocation of the delegatory powers of this committee. Who is behind these shenanigans and why? What role have Newton, Esakoff, Lipshutz and Hyams played in all this? With 3 lawyers on council and a corporate counsel to boot, residents must be scratching their heads and wondering at the competency of all involved and the ceaseless machinations which continue to dog Glen Eira. Most importantly, the minutes themselves are a total shambles. Whether this is deliberate or not we will leave up to our readers to decide.

October 15, 2011

Who Is Chip, Chip, Chipping Away?

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

Mulch ado about council’s gardening service

Jason Dowling

October 15, 2011

A south-eastern council is facing probity investigations, including for a potential conflict of interest where a councillor who owns a hardware store that sells garden mulch pushed the council to close its free mulch service for residents for health reasons.

Glen Eira Council is believed to be under investigation by the Ombudsman’s office and Cr Frank Penhalluriack faces a separate investigation by the local government inspectorate over his push to close the mulch facility.

Cr Penhalluriack was also investigated by the council earlier this year over allegations he bullied the council’s chief executive, Andrew Newton.
Cr Penhalluriack denies he has a conflict of interest on the mulch issue or bullied the chief executive. The local government inspectorate has confirmed it is investigating Cr Penhalluriack and the Ombudsman’s office refused to comment.

The council voted in April to remove its Glen Huntly Park mulch facility.

In 2010, Cr Penhalluriack had requested an external consultant be employed to undertake an assessment of the health risks associated with the free mulch service.

The report found ”it is likely workers and mulch users are potentially exposed to bacteria (e.g. legionella) and fungi as a result of handling the mulch material”, and made six recommendations to manage the risk, five of which the council said it had implemented.

Separate advice to the council for the state Health Department said ”there is no evidence to suggest woodchips have ever been the source of legionella disease and a person would be very unlikely to contract legionnaires’ from handling woodchip mulch”.

Cr Penhalluriack told The Saturday Age he did not have a conflict of interest in pushing for the mulch facility to be closed, despite selling mulch from his Hawthorn Road hardware store.

”The mulch sales through Penhalluriack’s are 0.2 per cent of total sales,” he said, and had not increased since the free service had been closed.

He said safety concerns were the only reason he pushed to close the free mulch service.

”They have taken the mulch out, but the facility is still there, and the CEO has an obligation to act on a council resolution expeditiously.”

The Glen Eira council recently faced criticism for ignoring the advice of its own staff to heritage-protect a home owned the mayor, Margaret Esakoff.

. Cr Esakoff excused herself from voting on the issue.

The mayor said the Whistleblowers’ Protection Act prevented her from commenting on any possible Ombudsman’s investigation.

She said she was unable to comment in relation to bullying claims because of confidentiality provisions in the Local Government Act.

COMMENT: When government agencies such as the ombudsman and the municipal inspector are sent on total wild goose chases over something as inconsequential as a 0.2% councillor’s interest in the mulch business, versus concerns over potential health risks for workers and residents, then there is something drastically wrong with our system.

We keep asking the most basic questions:

Why is this story continually in the limelight? Is it really the most important thing that is happening in Glen Eira?
Who stands to gain the most by potentially discrediting Penhalluriack?
Why aren’t questions being asked as to why the mulch was put there in the first place? If so perfect to start with, then why the need to implement the ‘experts’ recommendations as a result of the scientific findings? What does this say about overall approaches to risk management?
Who tipped off the Age about the mulch story and why tip them off now, especially since the story is so old?
Who complained to the Municipal Inspectorate and/or the Ombudsman and why?
Is it coincidental that this story re-emerges in both the Leader and The Age when the CEO appointment process is starting?
Why the continual emphases on Penhalluriack when the council vote was 7 to 2 to close down the mulch shed? He certainly wasn’t the Lone Ranger on this.
Why does it take 4 months (and still counting) to table a council resolution for a Request for a Report on another potential location for the facility – whilst still keeping the $160,000 shell standing? It couldn’t be, could it, that finding another location would basically put the issue to bed for the community?
If conflict of interest is the current catchcry and flavour of the month, then let’s go whole hog and perhaps investigate every single Glen Eira councillor and administrator on a whole gamut of potential issues. Let’s turn over every rock and cranny and see what lies underneath. But please, enough with the mulch already!

Glen Eira Debates