From the minutes of August 8th 2010 Council Meeting –
Right of reply
(a) Cr Lipshutz – “I wish to make a personal statement and it arises from an article in The Leader that was published today.
Helen Whiteside was first elected in 2005 with me. Indeed we campaigned together and worked closely together since that time. We are not only colleagues but friends, showing very similar views as to what sort of city we wanted Glen Eira to be. Accordingly while I wish to pay tribute to the significant work Helen performed as a Councillor, I have to say I am saddened and disappointed that Helen has not only resigned but has done so with spite and malice in denigrating in such an untruthful way the Council and her colleagues. Colleagues who honoured her by electing her as a Mayor and a Council which she once lead.
I firmly believe that we were elected to make decisions on behalf of residents but equally as a functioning democracy we don’t always win every battle. You win some. You lose some. But essentially the Council or indeed any level of government to function properly there must be respect that the majority decision prevails. One does not take one’s bat and ball home merely because you lost a vote. You didn’t agree with the umpire’s decision. Regrettably, Helen has been unable to accept the majority decision. I recall that when she was first elected, she was faced by attack by certain members of the public about her role as a nurse. She wanted to resign. When she was elected I said only the preferences from Cr Penhalluriack and me she was miffed and wanted to resign. In each case, she was successfully prevailed upon to remain. In this case she could not accept the decision with respect to the re-appointment of the CEO and removed herself from her colleagues. She fomented dissent and division and ceased to be a team player.
In a leading article in The Leader she cites her reason for resigning as the continued investigation by the Local Government Investigation and Compliance Inspectorate, the re-appointment of the CEO and some Councillors’ unacceptable behaviour.
It is my considered view that Council has worked well, co-operatively and respectfully to each other and Officers. I am unaware as to any matter of such magnitude as would warrant a resignation and indeed all Councillors without exception and whether or not agreeing with each other have concentrated on the issues and have not allowed any personal differences to impinge upon their work as Councillors. This is clearly reflected in the voting pattern inasmuch as there is no voting pattern. Councillors look at issues and decide on issues and not on personalities. It is decidedly healthy that there are differences of opinion and that those opinions whether expressed here in the chamber or elsewhere are stated without fear. On occasions debate and discussions have been robust but in all the time that I have been a Councillor we have always been able to agree to disagree. There’s only one Councillor in all the time that I have been on Council has been unable to do so – it has been Helen who removed herself in recent times from the Councillor Group. Clearly she does not wish to be associated with the other 8 Councillors. Who was guilty of bad behaviour?
Helen has also raised the ongoing investigation. Let it be clear that the Inspectors have told me that the Inspectorate will investigate any matter brought before them no matter how spurious. This Council and every Councillor has not only fully cooperated with the Inspectorate but has afforded the Inspectorate access to every document for which a request has been made. I totally and categorically reject any suggestion that Councillors have not complied with the Municipal Inspector’s requests.
Any suggestion or any or innuendo to the contrary is absolutely false. Helen has also asserted that there has been no that there have been decisions made leading to bad governance. Regrettably again she forms that view because she was a minority position. While we can always do things better I am confident that Councillors are well aware of the need for good governance and we have complied with all requirements.
I can respect that Helen in keeping with her record of threatening to resign when the going gets tough has now resigned but I find it unacceptable and inappropriate that in doing so she has demeaned and denigrated the organisation that she has led as a Mayor.
It is sad that Helen has sour grapes towards her colleagues but to suggest that Council is not united, to suggest that Councillors are or have been engaged in bad behaviour or that there are significant governance issues is not just incorrect but is plainly wrong.
I, for one, have never considered resigning, nor will I. Barring any unforeseen circumstances, I will be serving my full term and I am committed to ensuring this Council continues to work as it has to date: co-operatively, respectfully and diligently. When I lose a vote, I will not pack up and leave.”
August 13, 2010 at 4:50 PM
guess with ‘friends’ like Lipshutz and co you certainly don’t need any enemies:-)
August 13, 2010 at 6:36 PM
Rather than dummy spits perhaps Lipshutz could update his blog – or is unaware of any community issues.
August 13, 2010 at 6:39 PM
I have never met Cr Lipshutz, only observed him at Council meetings. On the first occasion he spoke against one of the by-now-ubiquitous non-compliant 3-storey high density developments plaguing Carnegie, and then voted for it. Subsequent occasions he had to excuse himself because of a conflict of interest, having done consulting work for developers whose applications were under consideration. [N.B. Carnegie is not in his Ward.]
Helen spoke out passionately against several developments which in her view [and mine] failed to comply with the Glen Eira Planning Scheme. It was rare to see her supported by many of her fellow Councillors. At a planning protest meeting held under the auspices of Marvellous Melbourne, Helen was there. When the State Government attempted to ram through the horrific Planning Legislation Amendment Bill 2009, a protest was held on the steps of Parliament House. Helen was there. None of this may matter to those who don’t know what a DAC is, but I appreciated her efforts. On the relatively few occasions I rang her regarding Council matters she unfailingly either answered or called back promptly. I certainly do not criticize her for deciding she no longer wanted to be a part of the current regime at Glen Eira.
August 13, 2010 at 9:16 PM
Well, what a circus.
Firstly, council totally ignores the agenda recommendation on whether to release former councillor Helen Whiteside’s resignation letter then proceeds to attack her character under “right of reply”. Wouldn’t it be helpful if we knew Helen Whiteside’s viewpoint?
But not in this council. Led by Cr Lipshutz, who exceeded his usual arrogance and hubris, and was ably supported by Crs Hyams, Esakoff (now what have they got in common?) and Tang it was a display of vindictiveness not seen in this council for some time.
And when Cr Magee tried to question the appropriateness of this attack, they tried to gag him with points of order.
Now I am no supporter of Helen Whiteside, but I do give her some credit for acknowledging that she can no longer work with people who behave in this way. I suspect the local government investigator’s report will show whether her concerns were justified.
And it was interesting to note that the CEO left the meeting during the agenda item about her resignation – probably too embarrassed to witness the hypocrisy.
August 14, 2010 at 11:26 AM
Sympathy will undoubtedly flow to Whiteside following this unprecendented attack. Yes, I do commiserate, but only in part. She may have occasionally voted against certain planning applications, and yes, she does answer her phone when it suits, but so does Hyams, Esakoff, Penhalluriack. Only Lipshutz and Tang never answer emails. But all this is minor compared to what is really important.
voting against a building application looks good to the objectors. But it changes nothing if the council policy remains intact. It is all bluff and bluster. Why didn’t Whiteside come out in public and speak about the failings of the current MSS? Why haven’t any of these councillors had the balls to stand up to an administration that repeatedly rams its suspect policies and strategies through. This last council meeting is incredible. Did everything have to be presented in one sitting?
What this has in effect achieved is the silencing of the community. The pathetic little amendments put to the planning review change nothing. Councillors can grandstand all they like and vote against specific applications. But in the end the policy is still intact. Whiteside must share the blame equally for this failure to act on behalf of residents.
August 15, 2010 at 11:20 PM
I have never seen Helen speak against something and then vote for
it, and she has certainly appeared in public on multiple occasions
to support people objecting to unrestricted and non-compliant high
density development. I’m not aware of any other Cr who has been
prepared to do so.
I disagree that what Councillors say and how they vote is minor, and
while the MSS is in poor shape, there are many other Sections of the
Planning Scheme open to abuse. All the local content needs a drastic
overhaul. Since initiating any change to the planning scheme
requires Ministerial approval, its not fair to blame anybody who
inherits the mess. If however they don’t try to improve upon the
mess, or curb some of the worst excesses of its application, then
yes, they’re guilty.
Council politics being what they are, Crs are aware of how the
officers can punish them if they don’t comply with Officers’ wishes.
Crs can also be hit with a 397-page agenda that they cannot hope to
master between a Friday and Council meeting on the following
Tuesday. This goes to the very heart of my personal philosophy
of Democracy and what is going wrong in Glen Eira.
None of us can keep track or provide informed input in all the
decisions that are made around us and affect our lives. We all
specialize, and trust others to make the decisions that we would
make if we were in their position and had access to the same
information. It should however be possible for anybody sufficiently
interested or motivated to get that same information and make an
assessment whether the decisions being made on their behalf are
indeed the ones that they would make. This requires access to the
information. Suppressing information is a direct attack on
democracy.
Councillors can’t master a 397-page document, so they need advice
from others, especially Council Officers [but also concerned and
informed members of the public]. The same deal applies…do
Officers provide the advice we would provide given the same
information? Local Government Act spells out the responsibilities
of a CEO, which includes the Senior Officers and their performance.
If poor advice or advice that badly conflicts with the advice
ratepayers would provide is consistently being tendered, then the
CEO is responsible.
I took the trouble to make a submission for the review of the
local components of the Planning Scheme, and hope all others here
who are concerned about Governance in Glen Eira also made
submissions.
While the Final document was a disappointment, and spent much of
its content acting as an advertisement for the City Development
part of Council, it still mentioned several issues that I have
been hammering away at over the last few years. This at least is
*some* progress, given the outright rejection any discussion
around those issues had previously received.
Culturally though, Council is light-years away from where they
need to be to cope with modern challenges.
August 16, 2010 at 9:33 AM
Reprobate, I agree with many of the points you make. However, I’d like to point out some other things.
1. Agendas are a real problem. Yet, when the Local Law came up for review councillors had the option of changing things such as longer time before distribution and actual council meeting. they also specifically allowed a clause that ceded the right to prepare the agenda exclusively to the CEO. Were they blind, dumb, or simply too stupid to see the results?
2. You’re probably 100% right that officers can give certain councillors a hard time. Requested information may never arrive; requests for reports take years, etc. etc. And yes, the CEO is to blame. He is in charge of his staff. But surely, they don’t act independently? they take orders from the top. So, the problem lies with the CEO. Now what did our brave band of councillors do? Hand him the compromise of another two years!
3. Other councils have sacked their CEO, paid him out and put an end to the misery. but not Glen Eira. Its reputation and history has cast a real pall over its ability to govern. Believing the party line that there should be no open dissent, no hint of controvery, and no public display of ‘difference’, these councillors have succeeded in merely continuing this sad history. What does Marx say? History repeats itself – first time as tragedy, second as farce! We are now into the third repetition. It’s gone beyond a farce into the realm of soap opera.
August 15, 2010 at 10:46 AM
Well Lipshutz is at it again making a barely coherent attack, again on a defenceless women who has no right of reply. Lipshutz has been in more Organisations than I have had clothing changes and in the end he always leaves and the whispers abound. I guess the Inspector is there for no reason. Well time will tell and who knows Cr Lipshutz may become Mr Lipshutz. Ask Lipshutz if any Cr appeared before the Inspectors with their partner or a legal eagle. I don’t believe a word Lipshutz says and I await the Inspectors Report and then we can judge his integrety as seen by independent Investigators rather than the Crs high opinion of himself. Helen is a person of the people and should be congratulated for exposing the disgraceful behaviour of some Councillors which has lead to Inspector being called in.
August 15, 2010 at 9:49 PM
Whiteside has to release her Resignation Letter or else her resignation is a waste of time. Helen you owe these Councillors nothing but you owe the community plenty. Surely the Community has a right to know what is going on.
Comment: The moderators have deleted the first two sentences of this posting since it contained comments that were extremely derogatory. Again, we will publish all material that is free of vilification and/or unacceptable language.