It seems that our man capable of making ’hard decisions’, Cr. Lipshutz, has recently made another such ‘hard decision’ in a long career of resignation after resignation. Reading between the lines there are two possible scenarios – either he was pushed, or he spat the dummy a la Whiteside. Either way, it seems that Michael is having trouble holding on to senior executive positions in a number of organisations – oh, and let’s not forget his decision not to stand for pre-selection when beaten by David Southwick!
Why, oh why, we ask ourselves is this poor bloke having such an apparently rotten time these past few years? What is it about these organisations that makes him ‘resign’ – or could the fault possibly lie with our illustrious councillor? We don’t know! We’re only following the dots and a track record that includes:
- Two attempts (one successful) to gag councillors via the addition of a ‘no surprises’ clause to the local law
- Disdain for ‘community activists’ (read here anyone who disagrees with him)
- ‘We know best’ attitude
These traits may be pivotal in Lipshutz’s sudden resignation from the new radio station. Our question however, is how well such traits serve the people of Glen Eira? Maybe it’s time for another resignation Michael?
The article (22nd October, 2010) from the Jewish News follows. Does anyone find any resemblance to the state of play at Glen Eira Council?
“MELBOURNE’S Jewish radio station has a new leader of the pack. Following the resignation of Michael Lipshutz earlier this month, John Kraus has taken over the role as president of Lion FM.
The Mizrachi member faces the tough task of steering the station back on track after a troubled few weeks.
Lipshutz’s resignation came amid accusations that the board was censoring views that did not reflect board members’ opinions on Israel, and that the volunteers’ agreement that presenters were forced to sign impinged on their right to free speech.
There were also accusations these practices were in breach of the Australian Communication and Media Authority’s community radio standards, which require stations to promote diversity and encourage community participation.
Kraus, who has held a number of communal roles in recent years, including chairman of Leibler Yavneh College and treasurer of the Jewish Community Council of Victoria, said he hopes to resolve these issues “quickly and efficiently, so the station can move forward”.
“I will be proposing that Lion FM establish an editorial board and a formal process for resolving disputes via a separate disputes committee. The editorial board and the disputes committee will be independent of the executive and contain representatives from across the community,” Kraus said.
Regarding the controversial volunteers’ agreement, Kraus said it would be reviewed and comments and suggestions from the community would be welcome. He added, “My hope is that Lion FM becomes the unofficial voice of the Melbourne Jewish community – a voice that is as diverse as it is rich and a voice of which we can be proud.”
Lion FM presenter Bram Presser, who had refused to sign the agreement claiming it “dictates what the content and political bent of our show should be”, told The AJN he was encouraged by Kraus’ appointment. “We had a very productive conversation and I believe John has the station’s best interests at heart,” Presser said”.
Glen Eira Debates 
October 27, 2010 at 9:31 AM
Please tell us more about preselection.
October 27, 2010 at 11:04 AM
How does your statement about Cr Lipshutz standing for Liberal Party preselection square with his response to a public question from minutes of council meeting of May 22, 2006? Wouldn’t he have to be a member to stand for preselection?
“Public Question to Cr Lipshutz: You made a public statement saying, ‘I stand by the decision where I say there are eight Councillors here who are independent and one who is an ALP endorsed candidate and Councillor.’ You were then asked a Public Question as to whether any councillors other than Cr Staikos are members of a political party. You did not answer that question. You have a duty to answer truthfully. Have you ever been or are you presently a paid up member of a political party? Have you recently attended any political party functions?
Cr Lipshutz provided the following response. He said: “I note that the Public Question policy of this Council provides that a question may be deemed inappropriate upon the grounds it does not relate to the business of the Council or otherwise relates to a Councillor or staff member other than in their Council capacity. In my respectful view this question is not valid as it does not meet the above criteria. In as much as it has been allowed I will answer. The issue that this question ought to address but clearly does not is whether any Councillors are bound to follow policy of any political party. Membership of a party is not by the fact alone sufficient to adduce such conclusion. Were a Councillor to have run as an independent candidate and not have disclosed that there is some political affiliation binding that Councillor to vote in a particular way then I clearly recognise the validity of the question. Given however that unlike the Labor Party none of the other major parties have any involvement in local government of whatsoever kind I can only surmise that to the intent that no one has suggested that any other Councillor other than Cr Staikos is a member of the Labor Party that this question is designed to lay a mantle of suspicion of undue political influence where there is none. Nevertheless so Mrs Nolle can finally walk away feeling she has been vindicated I can say that when I was eighteen in 1970, I’m now 54, I did join the Balwyn branch of the Liberal Party. I attended two branch meetings and was thereafter wholly disillusioned and took no further part. I am not a paid up member of any political party. I have not recently attended any political party function and where I invited to do so I would attend irrespective of which party. I certainly have over the last three years met with both the Premier and the leaders of the opposition as well as Labor and Liberal frontbenchers to discuss issues involving community.”
October 27, 2010 at 2:08 PM
Actually the following comment from Bram Presser suggests that Michel Lipshutz resigned because he had concerns about the censoring of presenters.
“Michael Lipshutz resigned as President because he was concerned with the way the station was being run”
see –
http://galusaustralis.com/2010/09/3570/the-hijacking-of-lion-fm/
October 28, 2010 at 7:05 AM
Agree with you Glen Huntly. I have copied below part of Bram Presser comment that explains the reasons for the Lion FM debacle. I think that there are some lessons to be learned from that.
I believe that Cr Lipshutz is constantly maligned by the ‘gleneira’ site by people and groups that are selfish and do not necessarily consider Glen Eira community at large. I think that Cr Lipshutz is fair in dealing with problems confronting Glen Eira Council. And being fair means that you cannot satisfy everyone. Perhaps because of that Cr Lipshutz is not cut out to be a conviction politician. I think we are fortunate to have Cr Lipshutz on the Council contributing with his wide and in-depth knowledge and experience.
Some people believe that you need to be a conviction politician to be a Councillor. But then, what are you to be convinced about? What priorities should Council have? Perhaps that should be debated more thoroughly.
Below is Bram Presser quote. The parts of this quote that are relevant to GECC are highlighted. They deal with legalities and governance; openness and transparency; defense of one’s rights. Most importantly, it shows how the executive of an organisation can manipulate situation for its own benefit in the name of a community. That I believe is the problem in Glen Eira, where the CEO and his team of Directors are constantly manipulating the situation to benefit their own ideas and egos that have nothing to do with the community at large. And even a lawyer like Cr Lipshutz has difficulties in influencing the outcome.
“What you are failing to understand is that this is not about me. It is about the way in which an organisation, granted a community license (with all the attendant ACMA and broadcasting requirements) is being held hostage by a small cabal who are only interested in protecting and promulgating their own interests. Contrary to your assertions, I spent over two weeks and countless emails trying to resolve this problem from within the station. For the most part it was like smacking my head against a brick wall. A small amount of progress was being made, however, thanks to the efforts of the now former president, Michael Lipshutz. Thus, I was willing to continue keeping it in-house until the executive took the very public action of taking mine and Adam’s show off-air mid-episode. So now it has come to this.
Even if my show is cancelled and I am forbidden from ever stepping inside the Lion studio again, I will continue fighting to change the volunteer’s agreement. Far from being a ‘benign legal document’ as you call it, this agreement is an affront to both journalistic ethics and individual integrity. Clause 3 is proscriptive and dictates an exclusive political philosophy to which one is expected to adhere. Clause 4, dealing with ‘confidential information’, militates against the transparent running of the organisation and only serves to protect the executive from revealing what really goes on behind closed doors. Seriously, what can possibly need to be kept secret? This ain’t national security we’re talking about! Clause 5 gives the executive unfettered access to personal and private information of volunteers and, in my opinion, is the most repugnant of the clauses. I wonder if the executive advised all volunteers to seek independent legal advice before signing such a document as would have been good legal practice. I dare say I know both the answer and the reason why. The only reason this whole situation exploded like it did is because, as a lawyer, I knew my rights and what the contract actually said and insisted on standing up for myself. Before you get your knickers in more of a knot, you should know that even the secretary of Lion has conceded that the agreement may be contrary to the ACMA guidelines and is undertaking to revise it to make sure it doesn’t jeopardise the license. I am more than happy to sign an agreement that does not trample on my rights and have undertaken to sign upon my return on the understanding that it will be revised accordingly.”
October 28, 2010 at 6:03 PM
Just so there is no misunderstanding Curious, I am no fan of Cr Lipshutz. I think he epitomises much that is wrong with Glen Eira Council – ego-centric, arrogant, lazy and disrespectful of residents’ views. I would be delighted if he resigned from council.
However, in this case there seemed to be an implication that Lipshutz was behind the censorship of presenters which I thought should be corrected.
October 28, 2010 at 11:38 PM
Glen Huntly, thank you for the link. It makes for fascinating reading. However, we still beg to differ with your interpretation.
The author of the article you pointed us to writes – “I spoke with the then president of Lion FM, Michael Lipshutz, who assured me that nobody at the station was interested in censoring presenters. After some heated, but I believe constructive debate, he conceded that it was not necessary for a presenter to sign the agreement, but instead we should work together to draft a separate Presenter’s Agreement that would not tread on the integrity of Adam or myself as media persons”.
Let’s dissect this more closely. The ‘no-one’s interested in censoring’ is par for the course – we’ve heard this time and time again at council. No, no-one is ‘censored’ – we just don’t like ‘surprises’!!! Remember the Lipshutz/Whiteside motion of 22nd July, 2008? This was the first attempt to ‘gag’ councilors via the Code of Conduct. The motion was withdrawn on 2nd September 2008 following severe criticism in the press, from letters to councilors, and from certain councillors themselves. Our question then is, as President of this radio station, what role did Lipshutz have in the original framing of this ‘agreement’? One of the comments made on the provided link gives us the answer – “I inquired to the station today after reading the AJN article and was happy to hear that the problematic Volunteers Agreement which Mr Lipshutz had written for all volunteers and presenters to sign, is currently being upgraded to something more appropriate and community minded by a new lawyer.” So not only did Lipshutz know about it, he drafted the blessed thing! Now, if he didn’t agree with it, why not stand on principle and NOT DRAFT IT, or better yet, resign. Also, why did Lipshutz ultimately ‘concede’ that presenters could sign another version, and this only after much ‘heated’ and ‘constructive debate’?!!!!!!
And finally we have the great man himself stating in a comment – “Under my presidency, Lion FM developed a volunteer’s agreement that required all volunteers and presenters to subscribe to the broad objectives of the station, which included promoting the centrality of Israel in Jewish life and promoting Zionism.
Under that umbrella, however, there are many differing opinions. The station does not have a political view and I believe it should permit a wide range of opinions provided that those opinions are within the station’s constitutional objectives.
Regrettably, I believe an element of censorship arose where certain presenters were treated differently from others. I permitted the particular program to air for which I was subsequently criticised.”
Ah, the beauty of language and semantics! Firstly, it’s not the presenters who were treated differently – it was their views!! And if you’re such a man of principle, then why draft something that you’re so opposed to? Why not resign there and then if you discover that your views are so diametrically opposed to everyone elses? Why the need for ‘heated discussions’ if you and the presenters are in agreement about basic rights to free speech? And why wait til the shit hits the fan via bad publicity that you take the step to finally resign.
Sorry Glen Huntly, but your arguments don’t fully convince us.
October 27, 2010 at 8:05 PM
hi folks, this is crazily interesting. glen eira has 3 lawyers and an expert in governance in our ceo. andrew newton made presentations on governance way back in 1990’s. so we have 4 people on the council on governance that are xperts (‘knows more and more about less and less until he knows everything about nothing’).
have you seen any other council with 40% xperts on governance? have you seen any other council having a local law full of rules, restrictions and regulations? so of course we are ‘wallowing’ in governance theme. yet this is only one of 7 themes! and in spite of this great xpertise glem eira had 3 investigations! how come? i think precisely because we have so many top people concerned with governance. so they have a ‘lawyers picnic’ deliberating over the minutae of legalese and the rest is just not being even considered or left to the ‘professional bureaucrats’. community
i think we should get rid of them ALL the 3 lawyers and the ceo. as somoene said “The mental, emotional and psychological health of a population is inversely proportional to the percentage of solicitors in the society”!. could not agree more.
and if you do not understand what weasel words means here is a reminder
Weasel Words n. 1 Words used by solicitors. 2 hist. Manipulating language. weasel words adj. cheeving a loophole adv. [ORIGIN] Middle English via Old French weaselcus and ecclesiastical Latin weasilvidicus from Greek weaselarkos “able to mislead with words” (as weasel)
October 27, 2010 at 11:23 PM
Forthright, is this what you mean? – from weaselwords.com.au – a great site!
“‘Well now, I know what a key is and I know what a driver is, but neither piece of knowledge is much use here. The phrase “key driver” is a dead metaphor. More significantly it derives from the world of corporate jargon, which suggests that you think of yourself as a corporation. You are not a corporation. You are a public service. Indeed you are actually my servants. I am paying you to do a job for me. So rather than using the jargon that corporations use to cloud the truth, I’d prefer you to tell me the truth.’ Joe Bennett, ‘Dear Council, try saying sorry and dump the propaganda’, The Southland Times, 28 July 2010″
October 28, 2010 at 11:39 AM
the site i have quoted is http://www.hereticpress.com/Dogstar/NoCourt/index.html
a great site.
November 3, 2010 at 4:14 PM
Streuth, this site brings to light facts that should have been known to us, the voters, before the Council election. Let’s talk about Cr Michael Lipshutz.
In his election material he promised nothing beyond saying how good he is and in how many different organisations he has been involved in and lead. He did not mention that in many instances, when he reached the leadership role there was a ‘revolt’ and he was replaced soon after or he resigned. Examples abound: President Bnai Brith Anti-Defamation Council, President JCCV, and the latest one now President LionFM.
We have to ask, why a person with an excellent background, education, so much knowledge, and practical experience, is perhaps being booted out from so many different community organisations? After all, Michael is a Community Worker most of his life and knows how communities work. A clue to the man is in an interview Cr Lipshutz gave to Jewish News jewishnews.net.au/news/2009/06/22/a-love-of-work-and-community/2102. Here are a couple of quotes:
“…when I was a kid I always said I would become prime minister -– people remind me about that today.”
“I considered a political career, but there wasn’t enough money in it and the future was too uncertain -– not a great option when you are married with kids. I have always enjoyed the law, so that was where I headed.”
Ambition and aspiration are excellent motivators to do things in life and should not be the basis for criticism. And I am not critical of Michael Lipschutz in having ambitions and aspirations for high Public Office or for making more money to better himself and family. However, the way one goes about fulfilling ones own ambitions and aspirations do matter in all public life as it affects other people’s lives and relationships. It is the how of doing things that brings into focus the ‘spat’ between Bram Presser and Michael. Here are a couple of quotes from Jewish News on Lion FM:
“…from the very beginning it was apparent that the station – supposedly an asset for us all – was being run in a somewhat questionable manner by people with no radio experience and a political agenda to push.”
“It was drafted as if everything to do with Lion FM was top secret – as if the executive were running ASIO or the CIA rather than a simple, inclusive community radio station.”
Now a similar thing happened at the Council, when Michael was first elected in 2005. He got 6 Councillors together at his home and essentially they seemed to form a voting clique to ensure that there is always a majority and collusion on issues of interest to that group. How would you feel being left out as Cr Robilliard, Cr Spaulding, and Cr Staikos were? Not only that, this kind of collusion is also a vote of no confidence in the CEO. As it happened ALL of them are liberal party supporters. Result is that no Councillor outside that clique has ever been elected to be a Mayor. Hey, the electoral democracy has gone out the Council chambers by that totally undemocratic act soon after the election. Stuff that, I cannot see ANY benefit in that for the community.
The other problematic example is the “No surprises Policy”, which seems to include the debate in the chamber. In fact there is no free wheeling conversation, discussion, polemic or debate of any kind in the Chamber. And the great Cr Lipschutz acts as though the Council Chamber is ‘his eminence Court’. He argues as though he is the judge e.g. On the one hand it is this … On the other hand it is that … On balance of probabilities I decide that it is whatever … Michael, this is not the way it should work. This is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.
Councill Chamber, when considering items for quasi judicial decisions must engage each Councillor to present his/her independent view on an issue at hand with an open mind and NO pre-apprehension or prior collusion. It MUST NOT be manipulated behind closed doors to have a pre-judged outcome. The outcome must be determined by a vote that looks and feels like it’s coming from independently minded members of the Council. After all, that is the essence of the ‘Winky Pop’ case. Michael if you want a good judicial example of how it should work, then look at the way Full Bench decisions of the Supreme Court or High Court are made. Each judge considers in depth and argues their position of the issue at hand and then votes. And just to make it absolutely clear why it is done that way – in Latin argure means to clarify! Council Chamber is NOT a single judge Court like a magistrate Court for you to show your brilliance, or fulfil your ambitions to be in charge (e.g. prime minister). By doing what you are doing, you are destroying the environment for clarification of complex issues for the public to understand. That is ROTTEN, ROTTEN, ROTTEN.
Councillors must come to the Council Chamber with carefully considered factors brought to their attention and researched by each Councillor independently. And then at the Council meeting each one is to argue strongly for his/her view and convince others of the validity, value and importance to benefit the community at large. Clearly, if decisions are to be made to benefit the community at large their views, whatever they are, must be sought and considered. And here your disdain for community views, and lack of sympathy or understanding of, in particular activists’ views, is totally unacceptable and reprehensible. Here are just a couple of quotes:
“The Friends of Caulfield Park commenced by agreeing that the Pavillion was
required but then the Council heard a litany of nitpicking negativity. No proposal was
submitted and there has been plenty of time for them because the brief was a public
document.” (see http://www.caulfieldpark.com/index.html for the extensive work and input by FoCP)
“I would however remind you that I and my fellow Councillors were elected by
the people in a fair and contested election. It is we who represent the
residents and not the community groups to which you refer.” (Mary Walsh question cited FOCP, DOGE, GERA).
Michael, the worst part of this type of attitude and arguments is that you are abrogating the fundamental role of a Councillor to represent and advocate on behalf of your constituency: residents, traders, workers, professionals, etc. Instead you contrast the views of your constituents with the views expressed by Council Officers in their documents and papers. Again, you misunderstand the purpose of such documents. The Officers papers should be regarded as a Primer document for consideration of a particular issue or problem. It is definitely NOT a sacrosanct document that must be adopted. It needs to be analysed, dissected, and together with submissions from community members the issue(s) ought to be considered properly within the context of the issue at hand as well as understand the context of each submitter.
For example the Officers submission usually is biased towards their perspective and understanding of the Corporate ethos, which may be totally at variance with the wishes and ethos of the community members! Each community submission may indicate the ‘tip of the iceberg’ of problems the Council may have. Instead you think that people make a “mountain out of a molehill” and you ignore them. You do not communicate with them, or represent them or advocate for them.
You are also forgetting that most of those that decide to write in are probably professionals in their own right and do a great service to the Council by responding and providing an input. If you would bother to value (in money terms) the input the Council receives by community members, just as you do it in your own professional capacity then you may have had some appreciation of the value of the work, effort, time and in many instances money involved in making a contribution to Council deliberation. Each submission is probably worth thousands of dollars. And what do you do Michael? You ignore them. You do not communicate with them. You are showing yourself as an arrogant, rude, with a ‘born to rule’ mentality. SHAME, SHAME, SHAME on you.
As I read what I have just written I begin to understand “why a person with an excellent background, education, so much knowledge, and practical experience, is being booted out from so many different community organisations?” I think Curious is correct in saying that you are clearly not cut out to be a Politician or be a Community Leader in any way, shape, or form. The best thing you can do is to RESIGN, RESIGN, RESIGN or CHANGE, CHANGE, CHANGE right now. Otherwise, you will suffer the indignity, ignominy and wrath of the community at the next election if you try to be re-elected.
PS. You have been a ‘mentor’ to Steven Tang for a long time. And he has followed in your footsteps. I think your mentoring has ethically disfigured this young man. The Frisbee case is another case of clearly young people having the support of an influential senior person that feels wrong on ethical grounds even if it is legally correct. It encourages flouting of the law. Surely, you do not subscribe to that? Please do it right for yourself, your family, your friends and the community.