We’ve decided to embark on an occasional series – a performance appraisal of each councillor. We believe that the community deserves some feedback as to how each individual is doing and whether those we voted for are in actual fact fulfilling their obligations to the community. As always we invite comments as to the accuracy (or inaccuracy) of our evaluation. First cab off the rank is Lipshutz.
Hubris: Lipshutz takes the honours of being the only councillor who is prepared to publically insult, demean, and attack other councillors and/or members of the public. There are numerous instances, including we’re informed, Tuesday night’s meeting where he described a comment by Cr. Lobo as ‘nonsense’ followed by another more vitriolic serve later on in the night. Then there’s also some bitter, past attacks on Whiteside, Mary Walsh, and who knows how many others. Perhaps we should remind readers that in Greek tragedy the meaning of hubris is: “an excess of ambition, pride, etc, ultimately causing the transgressor’s ruin.”
Community representation: over the years on planning issues, Lipshutz has been a staunch supporter of the mantra ‘it could have been a lot worse’. That is: we’re screwed by VCAT, the State government, so only we know best how to protect you people. We’ll allow 8 storeys instead of 10!!! More alarming however, has been the repeated stabs at members of the community who have had the persistence, courage, and passion to object to inappropriate developments at VCAT. Instead of supporting such endeavours, Lipshutz has instead castigated objectors, claiming that their intervention has only made matters worse. As a lawyer, this stance is highly suspect. We would like to point out to readers, the following statement by Alan Goldberg, QC: “it is a fundamental principle of a democratic society that citizen with complaints, particularly against government, should have the right and opportunity of recourse to the courts and tribunals established to resolve their disputes without pressure being brought upon them to refrain from having recourse to the judicial process”. From past comments it would appear that Lipshutz has forgotten this fundamental tenet of our system.
At council meetings, Lipshutz (and other councillors) readily avail themselves of their supposed ‘right’ under Councillors ‘Right of Reply’. Some councillors use this agenda item to attack members of the public, without giving those members of the public their own right of reply. Lipshutz, who is a lawyer, would know that this could never happen in a real court of law, where both parties have equal rights, and where unbiased Judges enforce those rights. At present it appears that Glen Eira has one law for councillors, and another (inferior) law for the public. Perhaps the lawyers on council should take a refresher course on jurisprudence and the law of torts?
What is your mark out of ten for Lipshutz?
Glen Eira Debates 
September 23, 2010 at 2:11 PM
one out of ten. At least he shows up for most meetings.
September 23, 2010 at 5:11 PM
I’ve not posted before but felt obliged to add my 2 cents worth on this post. I was there on Tuesday night and witnessed Lipshutz in full flight attacking another councillor who just happened to disagree with him. There was no argument put forward by Lipshutz only condescending clap trap and insult. What was most appalling was that when it came to public questions and one individual asked all 8 of them Lipshutz’s argument was that such a person shouldn’t waste the valuable time of council officers. I now ask Lipshutz has he ever considered the possibility that if this individual got decent answers to begin with, or at least answers that responded directly to his questions, then he mightn’t feel that he needs to keep asking them. Besides, officers time is paid for by us. That’s what they’re supposed to be doing – answering questions from the public. Lipshutz would probably prefer it that noone had the gall to question him and his motives.
September 24, 2010 at 11:18 AM
I have read the public questions from the last Council meeting and they are pretty simple and clear yet Lipshutz chooses not to answer them claiming the lame and pathetic excuse they are vague. If I got this response I would also ask the question again until it was answered properly.
September 24, 2010 at 8:23 AM
1/10 When you say one set of rules for Councillors and one set of rules for the public. Well this would explain why I read in the Leader newspaper that he was seen walking his dog off-leash in an on-leash area. Does Civic Compliance know about this, I guess he is above the law?
September 24, 2010 at 11:54 AM
An important bill has recently been passed by parliament. Of specific interest to residents is the following clause (taken from the Explanatory notes) which we hope will have a profound bearing on the current operations of this council. It reads:
Clause 17 amends section 80A of the Local Government Act 1989.
Subclause (1) inserts a new subsection (1)(d) into section 80A of
the Local Government Act 1989 to require a record of an
assembly of Councillors to state whether a Councillor who
discloses a conflict of interest leaves the assembly.
Subclause (2) substitutes section 80A(2) of the Local
Government Act 1989 to require that the record of an assembly of Councillors be reported to the next practicable ordinary meeting of the Council and incorporated in the minutes of that meeting.
6
Subclause (3) amends section 80A(3) of the Local Government
Act 1989 to specify that it is an offence for a Councillor to fail to disclose a conflict of interest at an assembly of Councillors if the Councillor would be reasonably expected to know that he or she would have a conflict of interest if the matter were considered and decided by the Council”.
There’s also an amended definition of an assembly of councillors –
An assembly of Councillors is a meeting that considers matters that are likely to be the subject of a Council decision, either directly or under delegation, where the meeting is either an advisory committee with one or more Councillors present or a planned or scheduled meeting with at least half the Councillors and one member of Council staff. An audit committee meeting is not an assembly of Councillors”.
We welcome your comments on these changes
September 24, 2010 at 1:41 PM
In any democracy it is vital that diverse opinions are allowed free expression. The sad fact of the matter is that in Glen Eira, free expression means presenting a united front. This we are meant to believe equates with ‘vigorous debate’. Bullying and demeaning others as if oft Lipshutz’s way, does not come under the category of ‘vigorous and robust debate’. It only means that either his ego continually gets in the way, or he cannot stand any opposition to those ideas he puts forward. Either way, this councillor will ultimately be judged by the electorate. One can only hope that they can distinguish between the wheat and the chaff.
September 27, 2010 at 7:34 AM
1.25 out of 10
September 27, 2010 at 9:12 PM
THE REAL KING PLEASE STAND UP
bugger me. what a lot of bull, bull rage, and bullying. gleneira you have asked to rate lipschutz out of ten. i give him 2 out of 10. a very poor councillor. why? because his most important role is to represent the glen eira community. he does not answer calls, emails, or requests to see him, or inquiries. he is too busy making money and publicity for himself (he is the only one having a picture of himself in his company ad). represent means “Go and be a good example to the others of your group or in your position.”
is he a good example? and does he actually give a damn about anybody but himself? certainly he could not care less about glen eira community. he just should not be on the council. his constant is ‘i know what is best for you’, so it’s ‘my way or highway’. as he put it himself: you have elected me, so i do as i see fit and right and you the gallery or the community should take it or leave it. don’t stir. and if you want to have your say then stand for the election. yes, someone will definitely stand against lipschutz next time around. if he would be an honourable man he would stand down right now, saying ‘i do not have enough time to do justice to do the job of being a good councillor’.
lipschutz (on behalf of other councillors) in right of reply item states that “the Inspectorate had concerns with councillors’ accountability and transparency, they related to conduct concerning the CEO appointment process and contract …. There was no suggestion that the Council or councillors were improperly concealing any activities or deliberations from the public, rather that proper records had not been kept.” this is clearly not an illegal concern, but it is an unethical concern of using or not using proper records and procedures to record. this indeed is worrying.
out of 27 complaints, according to newton “The investigation which resulted in a letter made no adverse findings in relation to council staff and no recommendations in relation to council staff.” the administration has escaped scott-free as opposed to lipschutz being clobbered.
this is just so extraordinary and fascinating how that could have happened under lipschutz clear control of the council and by default the administration. after all if we are to believe ‘curious’ lipschutz determined how the council is to operate in 2005 with a meeting of 6 councillors including cr whiteside. all mayors came out of that initial secret meeting of councillors. yet when cr whiteside became mayor newton managed to turn her against lipschutz. so although the original complainant was mary walsh with her glen eira opinions, cr whiteside made sure that ‘the truth’ about lipschuts is reported. and now the ombudsman is further involved to investigate glen eira council.
it seems that the kingmaker and powerbroker is just a pawn in the clever politics of newton, who appears to be the real mccoy king of glen eira.
September 27, 2010 at 10:51 PM
Forthright, your analysis of the machinations of this council are certainly interesting, but I’m not sure I agree with you entirely. On his now defunct website Lipshutz proudly announces that even as a youth he had ambitions of being prime-minister. We’re also told “I also believe that it is essential that Council be decisive. Since my election in 2005 I can say that the Councils in which I have served have made bold and difficult decisions that were avoided by others over many years. I am currently Chairman of the Pools Steering Committee and Local Laws Committee. I also am a member of the Audit Committee, Racecourse Committee, Roads Committee and Finance Committee”. The ego and arrogance shine through all this palaver in the guise of courage to make ‘hard’ decisions. So on this point I basically agree with you forthright. Lipshutz has managed to cement himself on all the important committees going. He is, or at least sees himself as the Kngmaker. (By the way there’s also a pertinent comment on his website about the probity of one individual sitting on both the finance and the audit committee when they are meant to be independent of each other!). But I guess such a little detail wouldn’t bother our kingmaker.
As to the rest of your hypothesis forthright, I must diverge and disagree with you somewhat. I doubt that the initial inspector’s investigation was instigated by an ordinary citizen. It needed the credibility of a councillor – someone in the know, who could lay their hands on documentary evidence. This person I suspect was none other than Whiteside. She started the ball rolling, probably with the support of Magee, and perhaps Mary Walsh in the end. The question is why? What got up her nose? It was undoubtedly the reappointment of Newton and her chagrin that her baby only got two years instead of the five that she felt was his god given right. Now the question becomes at whose bidding did she go to the inspectorate? Was it Lipshutz? I doubt it. Who else? Tang? No, he is merely the appendage of Lipshutz. So that leaves everything to the backroom boys – Newton and Burke. They control the transcripts, they tape everything, they have the records, they thus have the ‘power’. When her darling only got the two years that was it – end of the story. So in the end Newton had his sacrificial lamb. The quest is now on for the next lamb to the slaughter. Perhaps Lobo, Forge, the new guys. They can be ‘trained’ into the newton way of doing things. All I can say is that the next two years are going to be absolutely fascinating – unless of course we happen to have another investigation along the way!
September 28, 2010 at 12:32 PM
he just can’t help himself. I’ve copied this from the leader
Cr Michael Lipshutz said the State Government had indicated Elsternwick was a high diversity housing area, with its proximity to public transport.
‘‘ Having council reject it or knock it back will no doubt create clapping in the public gallery,’’ he said.
‘‘But they’ll not be happy when VCAT comes along and says take it as it was.’’
How dare you pre-empt a decision made by a judicial board
September 28, 2010 at 1:29 PM
This quote reveals exactly where Lipshutz stands and it certainly isn’t for the community. Clapping in the public gallery means that people endorse discussions and they appreciate the efforts that councillors make for them. By denigrating this, Lipshutz is in effect saying ‘to hell with you – I know what i’m doing and I don’t give a stuff if you don’t like it.” He certainly needs to be reminded that the reason he is there is to argue a case for his constituents, to present their point of view, not to invite, or even make it easier for VCAT to uphold developers applications. Hubris councillor, hubris.