Hidden away under ‘Public Notices’ we find that there are 2 more scheduled meetings for the ‘Ceo Contractual Arrangements Committee”. Once again residents are told that it is ‘expected’ that the meeting will be closed – ie in secret! And once again there is this miniscule ad hidden away in today’s Age where no-one is likely to find it. Needless to say the legal obligations of one week’s notice have been fulfilled – but the ethical considerations in actually informing the public as to what is going on remains totally substandard.

We have yet to lay eyes on the minutes of the previous meeting and the agenda has mysteriously disappeared from the website!

Now there are another two meetings with the least possible amount of advertising. Most residents would never even bother to look under this link we suspect. So secrecy continues.

Questions abound:

  • Is Penhalluriack still excluded? If so, why?
  • Why haven’t the minutes been published? Will they be? If not, what does this say about legality of the whole process?
  • What are the terms of reference? Again, never published!

With no false modesty, Glen Eira Debates is taking at least some credit for the fact that the council submission has belatedly appeared via a link on Council’s home page!! We’ve uploaded it here.

We also provide below a verbatim listing of Council’s recommendations. Residents should carefully note the position taken on Height Limits. We urge all residents to compare this effort – tone, content, solutions, with what the other councils recommend and see as vital for their municipalities.

HEIGHT LIMITS

Target: The current approach to height limits is flawed. Height limits are most needed to protect areas earmarked for gradual or very limited change; the majority of Melbourne’s residential areas. Yet there are no tools to achieve this. Planning tools are potentially available to impose height limits for activity centres where more intense development is appropriate to be channelled (such as structure plans).

Proposed Solution: Introduce controls which enable mandatory height limits to be set in residential areas.

Environment

Proposed Solution: A State-wide approach to environmental sustainability is needed. The State Government should introduce a planning scheme control which complements the ‘star’ standard in Victoria’s Building Code. This control can be implemented through a ‘particular provision’ of the planning scheme.

VCAT

Proposed Solution: Amend the VCAT Act to require VCAT to implement Council policy. This is not simply a one sided solution aimed at benefiting local government. Yes, it will raise the status of local planning policies in VCAT decisions. However, this will also challenge local government. It will put greater pressure on local government to apply its own policies. More importantly, it will put greater pressure on local government and the DPCD to ensure local policies are clear, relevant, and logical.

Infrastructure

Proposed Solution: The State Government to take the lead in coordinating public authorities in the provision of infrastructure for activity centres so that improvements are directly linked to the increased demand/load of new development.

Local Planning Policy

Proposed Solution: A shift from policy to control based approach takes the difficulty away from interpreting policy, for all parties involved in the planning process. However, this requires the availability of controls from the State Government which can properly and completely replace policy and express policy aspirations. There will still be a need for some policy to assist with decision making. In this case, the State Government should allow the drafting of explicit and clear policy

Public Open Space Contributions

Proposed Solution: Enable inner and middle ring municipalities such as Glen Eira to obtain significantly higher developer public open space contributions. Shift the ability to obtain a public open space contribution from the subdivision stage to the development stage, to ensure multi-unit residential developments pay a public open space contribution. State Government to encourage multiple uses of public authority land (such as school playgrounds and the Caulfield Racecourse) as a means of providing additional open space in metropolitan Melbourne and Glen Eira. Council urges the State Government to encourage schools and the racecourse to cooperate and embrace this initiative

Time

Proposed Solution: Legislate for timeframes for the planning scheme amendment process for proponents, Local Government, and State Government.

Objections

Proposed Solution: Legislate clearly defined tests to what constitutes a valid objection, or valid submission, in the case of planning scheme amendments

Xmas Periods

Proposed Solution: Legislate changes to enable the stopping of the statutory clock during the Christmas holiday period. 

We’ve commented before on the secrecy which surrounds the Glen Eira submission to the Ministerial Planning Scheme Review. Council has no plan to release their submission to the general public as revealed in the response to a public question on Tuesday night. The submission will merely be sent to the questioner! We therefore assume that it will not be published on the website, there will be no discussion in any open forum, and nor will we be informed of any responses to this submission. Secrecy for whatever reason must be maintained!

By way of contrast, we provide links below to the following submissions from various councils – none of which appear to have had any problem with tabling their drafts at full council meetings, nor in making their submissions freely available to ratepayers. Glen Eira just continues along in its merry way completely out of step with other councils and with no regard for openness, transparency and accountability.

Port Phillip: Report_2_-_Attachment_1_-_Submission_to_the_Victorian_Planning_System_Ministerial_Advisory_Committee

Stonnington: 29-08-11 Vic Plan System Review – Attach 1 submission

Kingston: (from minutes) http://www.kingston.vic.gov.au/Files/PublicAgendaOrdinaryCouncil22August2011.pdf

Bayside: (from minutes) https://gleneira.blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/bayside-submission.pdf

There are countless other councils that have published their submissions, but the above should suffice for the moment.

9.4 CENTRE RD KINDERGARTEN

Two hands went up – Tang’s & Magee. Esakoff declared that Tang’s hand went up first.

TANG: Moved that council don’t sell the Centre Rd kindergarten and that council supports extension of kinda places as required by the universal access report. Also to ‘develop new consultation with the community’. Also asked for rreport on population projections ‘for next 10 years and broken down by suburbs’. Lipshutz seconded.

Stated that he moved the motion because he was ‘concerned’ that it was ‘contrary to the direction that council has taken’….(ie Packer Park, Nina Reserve where no council land was sold). ‘thought they were good decisions…(the expansion of car park at Bailey reserve was) ‘not as good a decision’…..(This suggests) ‘that council take a service that it already provides ….and put it onto public open space at Centenary Park…(.admitted that the open space wasn’t used well there & compared this to Packer Park and the need for) a’ 50 year vision’. (Council has made this mistake before and he doesn’t want to make it now). Doesn’t think ‘the report is strategic…….is basically ignoring the policy position that council has taken….(Early years plan considered population and kindas, plus childcare) ‘and adopted an action plan’ to 2013. (If council is now considering a new plan then that’s okay or to cater for highest need that’s also okay) ‘I don’t think this proposal does any of those…..this proposal looks at an area of open public space….let’s put money into it…The results of community consultation would be almost overwhelming in favour of a new kindergarten (but if you asked any area if they wanted a new kindergarten you’d also get such positive results) ….’but I don’t think that’s a good reason’ (to support this)….(Concern is) ‘lack of strategic support for the project’. Urged councillors to ‘consider this in the light of recently adopted and supported plans’…

LIPSHUTZ: Supported Tang and claimed that there is a need for plans ‘you don’t simply go out pick a site and plot something there….what you do is you have to have a plan and work out where the need lies…..(council has got a plan and this) ‘demonstrated very clearly that McKinnon….were the areas that needed kindergartens….(if you ask people about kindergartens anywhere they would always say yes they want it in their area)….’that’s not the reason why you do it….you do it because there’s a need for it….(question is planning for the future and maybe Centre rd won’t be appropriate) ‘but that’s in the future’….right now we do have a plan that says McKinnon Carnegie’ (is most important)…(Argument about open space not being used so much. the answer is to) ‘develop it so it can be used….you’re going to have a much smaller kindergarten and the need is not there…..we need money (in lots of areas)…you can’t simply come along and say dot dot dot and put kindergartens there….that’s not our responsibility….try to enhance what we have got….

MAGEE: ‘I believe (this is an) opportunity to listen to your community…we don’t as a council identify projects very well….we’ve got in our city 1501 kindergarten places….(and 12 vacancies)….1500 people moving into melbourne every week….we could very easily be in a position in 12 months with 30, 40,50, 60 kids not being (allocated a place)….East Bentleigh is probably your entry point (to getting into Glen Eira because of housing costs)…we have an enormous amount of growth (2 primary schools and one has now 600 kids  compared to 7 years ago when it had 400. Explained the history of the park and how it was originally part of Moorabbin and when the amalgamation came plans were shelved) ‘that land is still sitting vacant, that land is still sitting waiting’….’Centre Rd kindergarten is on a very busy road (with 6 car parking spots and to pikc up kids have to walk 300 metres. As councillors not just getting reports and ‘saying that’s our policy…(or saying) ‘at the moment the need is McKinnon. Of course the need is McKinnon…(but ten years ago it probably wasn’t)…’we need to have vision to look forward….we can’t just say at the moment there is 12 vacancies (and we’re doing well)…’we’re not doing well’….I would like to see 50 vacancies or a 100 vacancies…(not good enough for someone to stand up and say it’s not needed. 6 years ago it wasn’t needed but now it is)….‘we need to plan for childcare in the city of Glen eira…and we don’t have one (plan)…’we have no long term strategic plan’…..somone has to stand up and start saying (that)….(should be looking at) ‘where are we going to be in 5 years, where are we going to be in 10 years’….(to say it’s not needed, etc is just wrng) ‘and shows no forethought….we need to have visions…and we need to stand up and say so’.

PILLING: Supported Magee and stated that as councillors they needed to have ‘vision’ and support what the community needs.’there’s a growing need’, taken about 8 or 9 months to get to council….whole lot of resistance, I understand….’take a proactive role in representing our community….there are a lot of needs …

HYAMS: Closing centre rd and moving to Centenary Park, then council ‘would be getting a better site arguably….and $300,000 to $400,000…..could be 16 more places than we have now….Centre Rd (is registered for 25 kids, but can be developed since the playground area is large, so to move would be to) move it to an area that has fewer places….need to sell council property and take public open space….(Spoke about kinda in Brady Rd so this would be)’duplicating’ (services)….’put one where there isn’t one’…’will run out, run low on cash reserves…so another major capital works (would be put on hold)…Crs Magee and Pilling have disparaged process and I think (process is ‘quite important’…(mentioned the Auditor general’s report about capital works and how well Glen Eira rated….’there’s no point in planning ahead if we’re just gong to introduce these wildcat works…really what is the point of doing a strategic resource plan….the budget…if we decide we don’t need the supporting evidence at all…there are right ways of doing things and there are wrong ways of doing things…the right way of doing things is the way we have been doing it….doing it like this just sets a very dangerous precedent….where any councillor who decides they want any (thing will start pushing for it)…‘without any supporting evidence at all’….I would be amazed if anyone who knows anything about governments would suggest that this is the way to go about it’. MAGEE INTERJECTED HERE SAYING THAT ‘LIVING THERE FOR 25 YEARS IS ENOUGH…… Esakoff ‘Thank you Cr. Magee’.

PENHALLURIACK: Unfortunate ‘that we didn’t have the alternative motion to debate….you chose Cr. Tang. HYAMS INTERJECTED WITH A POINT OF ORDER – ‘Madam mayor I think that’s an imputation on yourself. I saw Cr Tang’s hand (go up first). ESAKOFF: ‘I agree and uphold that point of order’ Claimed that Tang’s hand went up first. Penhalluriack tried to say something, but was cut short with ‘I’m speaking’ by Esakoff. Stated that Magee’s hand went up after Tang’s.

PENHALLURIACK; ‘no negative imputation was implied.I wasn’t arguing about whose hand went up first…..(said that if the alternative motion was given to councillors first then) ‘the debate would have been about real things…we don’t have a copy of (Tang’s motion) for a start….We have been given $500,000 ….for Julie coooper Pavilion (land behind has been car park for 50 years) ‘It would be ideal on economy of scale to build …adjointing the pavilion…cahngin rooms rooms,toilets,….

ESAKOFF: Agreed with Tang – ‘it is contrary to recent decisions….not within our strategic planning….alienation of public open space….pavilion will be redevloped …because of its functionality, or lack of…when redeveloped it is going to have a much larger footprint….it is going to take in that wasted space….we are going to be losing that space as part of the new footprint…. MAGEE INTERJECTED WITH ‘YOU HAVEN’T BEEN THERE HAVE YOU?’ Esakoff – ‘Excuse me Cr!’ I have been there. My word I have been there. More than once!’ MAGEE continued and started to say that Esakoff was talking about something that she….(probably didn’t know anything about?) Esakoff then told Magee to ‘stop interrupting’. Esakoff contiued – ’12 vacancies…expand mcKinnon which would provide us with a further 50 places….Centre rd has room for expansion…to make this change now would actually be a loss of places….Brady Rd is running and there may be some opportunity to expand there too…(agree with Hyams about Attonrey Generall’s’….in any decision making we need a solid business plan….we do not have it (for this)…we have to have that solid business plan and backup for those decisions that we make…and this does not have it.’

TANG; ‘I was speaking to the report in the agenda….I don’t think anything I’ve said was off what’s in the public agenda…I don’t know what his concerns are…sale of Centre rd kindergarten is listed on page 15……

PENAHALLURIACK: point of order in that Tang’s motion ‘didn’t mention any of this’…Esakoff asked on what grounds the point of order?
PENHALLURIACK: Tried to complete what he was saying but Esakoff said that this wasn’t a ‘right of reply’ and that she needed ‘to know the grounds of point of order’…..’Sorry, I’m listening to Cr. Tang explain where his comments are coming from and that is on the agenda item. I dismiss that point of order’.

TANG; Stated that he didn’t really understand Penhalluriack’s point of order but he’d clarify. Explained that last week he told 4 councillors that he wanted to move a motion after all councillors had got the report. That he received at 3.39 today the ‘printed alternate recommendation that was suggesting that council consult on the concept drawings’…’Everything I spoke to was contained in the report all councillors received at the same time…so i resent that criticism…Cr Pilling held a forum on the issue (of kindergartens)….issues were raised (about need in all sorts of suburbs)…’that was the community identifying issues …not looking at statistics…but looking at the raw belief and emotion….and I support that and that came through very strongly….there are emotions involved there are real people involved….and I don’t think it’s been demonstrated that those real people want to spend a million dollars in expanding a kindergarten on the Centenary Park site…(over MckInnon kinda, bentleigh hodgson) and I see no reason why we shouldn’t support that over this one….we should look at all of the community…and not just this one project….(council could have included this in all its plans)….’it didn’t. If council want to change that, that’s fine….we review policies all the time….we should have a vision (but dealing with one kindergarten isn’t a vision)….I agree that councillors should take a proactive role…..let’s be proactive and create a ten year plan using the projections….

MOTION CARRIED: Against – Magee, Pilling, Penhalluriack, Forge. Lipshutz, Hyams, Esakoff, Tang and Lobo voted for.

Pilling moved an alternate motion – (a) council recognises heritage value of the conservatory; (b) expressions of interest not go ahead and (c) council funds restoration in 2012/13 budget. Penhalluriack seconded.

PILLING: Stated that this has been a ‘long saga….(and time that) council acknowledged the heritage…(worried about the precedents that would be set with a commercial enterprise) and ‘commercialisation of public parks’…(wondered about other things that would be needed such as car parking) ‘more concrete, open space taken up’…’sooner we get back to restoring the facility the cheaper it will be’…

PENHALLURIACK: Stated that he had changed his mind about the motion. At first had supported it and ‘still think it would be a good idea to add more life and activity to the park’…(referred to ex councillors in the gallery (Robilliard) and) ‘they probably remember that this was tried before and nobody stood up'(and showed any interest)…’we’re going to spend $10,000….which we really can’t afford to waste….I would like to see that money spent….on bulding itself (ensuring it’s in good condition)…’it’s a beautiful conservatory…way past it’s prime (inside and out)…’we need to look as a council at our responsibilities …to make sure this building (is retained).

LIPSHUTZ: didn’t think that what Pilling and Penhalluriack said was ‘accurate’….(ie previous EOI process and ‘no-one was interested’) …’My recollection is that the EOI was never done before’….’last occasion there was a …consultation as to whether there was interest in developing….57% of people who responded said they were in favour of it….(Talked about commercialisation and parks elsewhere in the world  and how they have ‘coffee houses’, ‘tea houses’)…(many people go to Caulfield Park but for coffee they have to) ‘go across the road out of the park’…..(issue is) ‘trying to enhance the park’….(EOI will look after Pilling’s concerns about heritage since this is only checking whether)’ anyone will be prepared to come out and develop’ …’and keep the conservatory and maintain the conservatory’…..(There’s an ampitheatre in that section of the park which is) ‘absolutely useless’…’white elephant’…’that whole area can be developed’ (so instead of ) ‘losing public open space probably get more open space by getting rid of the ampitheatre’…(if no EOIs then nothing lost)….(original motion is about) ‘keeping the conservatory….enhancing the park…(cost will be around $300,000 – $400,000 and EOI will only cost $10,000) ….’do the thing for us’ (ie developers)….(so not good economy to spend all that money when someone else can do it)…’that area would be very very much enhanced by having a little tea house there’….’The more cafes you have there the more people come to the area’….’enhances business’….

HYAMS:  Wants to ‘see what the options are really’ ….(talked about when council ‘consulted’ and majority were in favour and those against) ‘weren’t concerned about what was going on in the park’ (they were concerned about the coffee houses in the area) …’might suggest a concerted campaign by some of the (cafes) in the area’ …’concerned about their business’….(report is only to )’examine the possibilities’…(further consultation, minister’s approval before anything happens)…(if there is a cafeteria then it) ‘won’t detract from open public space, it will enhance it’ (because people won’t have to leave the park to get a drink)…’would contribute more to the conservatory than just restoring it’…(nothing much has been happening there anyway)…

TANG; Gave background. Agreed with Lipshutz that there hadn’t been any EOI before and agreed with Pilling and Penhalluriack that ‘this is an issue of twists and turns’….(admitted that in 2006 he supported cafe but now changed his mind after community consultation)…’whilst there was some support’ (it wasn’t overwhelming support)…‘I can’t see demonstrated community support at a level (necessary)….times may have changed (that means another consultation)….(Pilling’s motion is ‘fair’ and that we can look at it in 2012/2013 budget and that the cost of $150,000 – $200,000 has been named as costs for building works)….(wanted to look at other ways) ‘to bring the community back into the conservatory’ (instead of just a cafe).

MAGEE: Spoke about how coffee shops ‘don’t make money’ and how ‘coffee shops go broke’….’change hands yearly’ (and now talking about) ‘putting a coffe shop into one of our parks…inconsistent….(was in favour until issue of coffee shop in East Bentleigh and that it doesn’t succeed). Didn’t want council to be ‘in position where…we have to look for a new tenant for the coffee shop’ (every few months)

ESAKOFF: Agreed with Tang. didn’t ‘support this when we were dealing with this several years ago’…(not enough) ‘community support for it’…’in percentage terms may have been over that edge’…..

PILLING: ‘we’re coming from a negative aspect’…(we want someone else to pay for all this) ‘we’re not doing it to enhance the park…we’re trying to get someone else to pay for it….that’s not a great way to start….(need to accept that this is like any other facility ie. sport)’ and just get on and fix it’…

7 IN FAVOUR OF PILLING’S MOTION. LIPSHUTZ AND HYAMS VOTED AGAINST.

One outstanding feature of tonight’s Council Meeting was that Esakoff has been stocking up on her ‘assertiveness’ pills – or being fed them by certain individuals! Whenever Penhalluriack attempted to speak he was pulled up with ‘points of order’, or silenced by the Chair. He did however respond in length to one public question which we will comment upon in the days to come.

Other lowlights revealed in responses to the public questions were:

  • Heritage Panel report is claimed to have cost (only) $3000 and the lawyer for the day approx. $9000
  • Lawyers for the GESAC basketball fiasco have now cost over $5,000
  • Council submission to the Ministerial Planning Review will only be sent to the person who asked the public question of why this wasn’t freely available, given that residents had paid for this work!
  • One question was again deemed to be ‘harassment’ and excluded
  • Only Penhalluriack responded individually to a question on whether councillors agreed with having their emails intercepted, logged, viewed, by anonymous officers
  • Questions on the GESAC carpark and relocation of playground. Please note the financial report where we are now told that the RELOCATION OF PLAYGROUND WILL COST $391,000. This must be the most expensive playground in the world!
  • Esakoff succeeded in including an item of Urgent Business for the in camera discussion – without noting the reasons under the Local Government Act for their inclusion as ‘confidential’! Whilst ‘legal’ since the act only states that the minutes must record the reasons, it is again characteristic of the total disregard for the spirit of the law and the public by this council.

Other features of tonight included the total contradictory arguments presented by councillors from one item to the next. We will provide further details of these ‘debates’ in the coming days. Finally, we again note that the minutes of the Special Committee meeting have not made an appearance, nor have the requisite delegations, terms of reference, etc.

For those who may not know the works of Kafka, we strongly recommend The Trial & The Castle. In their own way both chronicle the crazy, manipulative world of bureaucracy gone mad. Events of this afternoon in Council Offices would fit very nicely into the nightmarish world of Kafka. Below is the chronology of these events:

  • Cr Penhalluriack had written to Mayor Esakoff informing her that he wished to inspect the Register of Interests and his own Personnel File as every resident is entitled to do under the Local Government Act and the Information Privacy Act. That he would come to the reception desk to pick up the documents. No response was forthcoming from Esakoff.
  • Penhalluriack arrived at the prescribed time last week only to be informed that the documents were not available since he  had not filled out the required form. This was then filled out and this afternoon’s ‘Pick up’ time was again transmitted to Mayor Esakoff in writing.
  • Penhalluriack invited a resident to accompany him as a witness
  • Upon arrival the Operational Manager of Civic Compliance met both at the Reception desk and invited them into a separate room where Council’s Privacy Officer (Rachel Kenyon) was waiting.
  • Following introductions, the resident witness was informed that the Register of Interests was only available to Cr.  Penhalluriack since the required form was not filled out by the resident.
  • Kenyon informed the group that the documents were available for inspection only until 4pm (arrival at the offices had been  shortly after 3pm). When questioned as to whether there is a time limit on ‘inspection’ Kenyon responded that that is when she finished work and that if more time is required then another request, and appointment must be made – and presumably another form filled out!
  • When Penhalluriack asked some general questions of Kenyon her reply was that she was there to ‘discharge her duties under the Local Government Act and NOT TO COMMUNICATE’ and that all questions be forwarded in writing to Paul Burke. The resident then asked whether the Local Government Act also forbade ‘communication’? No answer!
  • Penhalluriack then stated that he had been directed to forward all requests via the Mayor and that he had complied with  this. He then asked Kenyon whether she believed he was bullying or harassing her. The response – ‘No comment’.
  • Penhalluriack inspected the register and took notes. Upon completion he requested to see his Personnel File. Kenyon responded that she knows nothing about this and that the matter be taken up with Paul Burke. Penhalluriack then wanted to know if the Mayor was available. Kenyon left the room to check. She returned shortly after and informed everyone that  the ‘Mayor was busy’. The meeting then concluded.

COMMENT

Council officers are there to do the bidding of councillors and not the other way around. These events are inexcusable – legally, morally, and socially. Every resident has the right to be informed (and inspect) the information that council has collected about them, as well as to inspect the Register of Interests. If councillors can be treated in this obnoxious and deliberately obstructive fashion, then what does it say about the potential treatment of ordinary citizens? Esakoff’s seeming complicity in these events also deserve the spotlight.

Neil Pilling has highlighted another important item on Tuesday night’s agenda (9.3) – the call for Expressions of Interest to convert the conservatory at Caulfield Park into an 80 seat café/restaurant. We applaud Cr. Pilling for his stance that instead of wasting more money on such EOI processes, the funds would be better spent on actually fixing and conserving the building!

The current state of the conservatory requires full investigation and answers to these questions:

  • Why has this important historical building been allowed to deteriorate to the extent that it has? Why have priorities been  given to ‘concrete plinthing’ ahead of preservation?
  • How many more times will the old and spurious argument that something will cost too much to renovate/develop/preserve, so let’s get rid of it, be used to justify a pre-planned agenda – ie. swimming pools, maternal centres, libraries, etc. etc.?
  • Why is ‘consultation’ following the call for ‘expressions of interest’ and not the other way around? Previous ‘consultation’ (ie survey) is now obsolete, skewed, and irrelevant – especially since no real proposal was featured in this ‘survey’.
  • How does this support the already existing businesses in the area?
  • What environmental and social impact will this have on the park and its surrounds?
  • How much open space will be lost?
  • Can the area accommodate more parking?
  • What happens if there are no bona fide EOIs? Will council allow this site to simply perish?

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.

 

There are definitely very strange goings on in the Assembly of Councillors. We highlight only a handful:

  1. Meeting of 13th September
  • Tang arrived nearly two hours late
  • Various officers’ reports which haven’t been tabled in council meetings
  • Fiddling with the previous minutes (again) – Hyams’ suggestions mostly. One especially interesting one concerns an ‘Occupational Health & Safety’ (bullying?) where the previous ‘record’ had simply stated that Penhalluriack left the room. Hyams’ wanted this altered to Penhalluriack declaring a conflict of interest and then leaving.
  • 4 of the 6 officers walk out when an OH & S issue is being discussed. Later another one leaves. Bladder problems really strike at this point and the comings and goings are like a revolving door. Interestingly, no-one declared a conflict of interest!

2.      Meeting of 20th September

  • Tang’s there on time!
  • Again, when OH & S is discussed all but one officer leave the room. No declaration of conflict of interest.

3.    Meeting of 27th September

  • GESAC basketball discussions get an ‘update’ from Hyams
  • Forge mentions council ‘representation’ at a Department Planning Review Meeting
  • Again 4 officers walk out (2 remain) when the OH & S issue comes up. No conflict of interest declared.
  • Regulations for Local Government Act discussed. These regulations contain information on registers of interests and council and special committees.
  • There is then discussion on Special Committee and again OH & S

COMMENTS

After nearly 4 months, and a Request for a Report, nothing has yet appeared before council on the GESAC basketball allocations – yet the Warriors website continues to splash the council logo!!!

Council’s submission (reported in the Melbourne Bayside Leader) has yet to make it into the public domain and to be presented at a full council meeting. According to this newspaper it appears as if Esakoff signed off (as she did with the VEAC submission) rather than the CEO.

Obviously the Special Committee was discussed and set up in secret. No minutes as yet, no delegations as yet, and no terms of reference have been made public. Nor any reason provided as to why Penhalluriack is not a member of this committee!

OH & S features regularly. One strange sentence in these documents was the linking of OH& S AND ‘APPRAISAL matters’. Appraisal of what and whom, we ask? And why should these two items be linked?

Our conclusion – what a strange, strange council we have!