Judging by the report tabled at last Wednesday night’s council meeting regarding the ‘discussions’ that have taken place between the MRC and Glen Eira, we can only conclude that the role and involvement of councillors has been practically non-existent. The report makes two things pretty obvious –

• The real responsibility in these discussions lies with Newton and the CEO of the MRC – yet there has never been a formal public resolution by councillors to cede such authority to Newton
• Councillors have been relegated to superficial issues such as deciding on toilets, playgrounds and whether these should have a place in the centre of the racecourse!!!!

Did anyone complain?

Did anyone suggest that councillors should be an integral part of ALL strategic discussions especially in something as important as this piece of land and the C60?

Were they denied access to these discussions? If so, why and by whom?

Were they even informed that such discussions were taking place?

Were they informed as to the outcomes of each discussion? If they were, then why did Penhalluriack see the need for this ‘request for a report’? Was it only to ‘report’ to the community or to councillors themselves?

Why have the public been kept in the dark? What, if any, cosy little arrangements have been determined?

How many phone calls, emails, etc. have flowed between the two CEO’s or their direct subordinates? This of course is not listed in the report!

Don’t people find it strange that according to the report Newton and the MRC CEO met on 7 occasions without councillors or officers present? That officers were present in other meetings between the CEOs on two occasions? Where were councillors (apart from the Mayor on two occasions)in all this?

Once again, councillors (and by extension the public) have been neatly hobbled and excluded from  important ‘negotiations’ and strategic planning. All the important bits have been left to Newton! Is this ‘democracy’ at work we ask?

Front Page – Whitehorse Leader – October 27th, 2010

City fails its people

Residents want independent audit

WHITEHORSE ratepayers have slammed the council over a lack of transparency, excessive rates and wasteful programs. At a heated public meeting last week residents demanded an independent audit into council conduct for ‘‘failing the community’’. The three-hour forum saw residents pack into Manchester Unity Hall in Blackburn.

Among issues raised were inappropriate developments, executive salaries, protection of open space and community consultation. All 10 councillors were invited to to present the council’s case but none attended. Whitehorse Ratepayers and Residents Association president Bill Bennett blasted the council’s performance.

‘‘A lot of people here feel they don’t have a voice and that’s a real shame in this so-called democracy,’’ he said.

‘‘The council is a stumbling block and they are not wanting to hear what the community has to say.’’

Mr Bennett attacked the rate rise of a set 6 per cent over five years as residents struggle with the soaring cost of living.

‘‘We looked long and hard as to why this rate increase was justified and we haven’t been able to find any reasons,’’ he said.

Blackburn resident Roy Lloyd said an independent review of CEO Noelene Duff’s performance and council’s management was crucial to restoring ratepayer trust. ‘‘It requires a total change in attitude – unless something like this happens we will just be hitting our heads against a brick wall,’’ he said.

Whitehorse Mayor Bill Pemberton said the association claims were unfounded.

‘‘We spend a lot of time providing detailed responses, which means officers are taken away from other roles,’’ he said. ‘‘We work very hard to make things available as required under law for us to be transparent when it comes to costings and accountings.’’

Cr Pemberton said Whitehorse had less general managers on high salaries than most of the neighbouring councils. He said the past two budgets had been the best deal struck for residents. ‘‘We try to engage the community as best as possible.’’

2006

Joyce Park –  $1,069,000

Princes Park Pavilion – $1,972,000

Caulfield Park – design – $258,000

Bricker Pavilion – $1,782,000

 2007

Marlborough St. Reserve – $235,000

Swimming pools manager – $260,000

Caulfield Pavilion – $3,833,000

Caulfield Landscaping – $1,773,000

Murrumbeena Reserve –   $539,000 

2008 – 2010

Princes Park – Sussex Rd. Carpark – $400,000

Sportsground Lighting – $1,500,000

Duncan McKinnon – $700,000

King George Reserve – $250,000

Koornang Park – $292,000

GESAC – water slides – $568,000

Packer Park – $450,000

Princes Park oval – $600,000

Victory Park Oval – $300,000

GRAND TOTAL  –    $16,781,000.

• Lobo got the ball rolling by questioning the accuracy of the record/minutes of assembly. He noted that the reference to communication via emails should read ‘racism’.
• On Item 9.1 (5 storey development) Lipshutz used the term ‘appropriate’ at least 5 times in the space of 10 sentences. Pilling concurred. Passed unanimously.
• Items 9.2 and 9.3 were passed. Magee voted against item 9.3. The basic argument was that these items were really only ‘housekeeping’, the land was not really valuable as open space/park, since it was behind a brick wall, no-one knew about it, and hence too late to do anything about it since it wasn’t in council’s control – although they had ‘authority’. PITY THAT THE PUBLIC WASN’T PREVIOUSLY INFORMED THAT THERE IS A COURT CASE PENDING BETWEEN THE OWNERS!!! Seems that this little detail somehow escaped the Officers’ report. Perhaps Glen Eira Debates should take some credit in prompting this tiny tit-bit of information into the open?
• Farce of the evening was the self-congratulatory performance of nearly all councillors who actually thought they were conducting a ‘debate’ on the financial statements and the prioritisation of capital works. Perhaps ‘debating’ sessions should be given to councillors in conjunction with refresher courses on governance as recommended by the Municipal Inspector?
• We’re told that the item which generated most ‘debate’ was Esakoff’s ‘urgent business’ relating to potential state government regulation on pruning of trees near power lines. Esakoff moved that GE provide $30,000 for ‘fighting fund’ in conjunction with other councils and MAV. Magee opted for the ‘wait and see’ approach. Pity that such ‘debate’ and ‘spontaneity’ cannot be directed to more pressing issues that impact severely on residents.
• 2 public questions were taken ‘on notice’ and one was declared inadmissable as it did not refer to a councillor in the performance of his duty as councillor. A question directed to senior executive was also taken on notice. Will be interesting to see how long it takes for these ‘answers’ to surface!

Apparently there were also numerous occasions when several councillors did not know correct procedures as to asking questions of officers (Esakoff); being allowed ‘Right of reply’ on behalf of someone else (Magee); speaking to agenda item (Lobo). After two years, and for some many more, is it asking too much that councillors are au fait with their own local law and its Meeting Procedures? Even Tang we’re told had to defer to the wisdom of Burke!

A comment received by Streuth –

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.

Council 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.

There are a couple of convoluted, confusing and curious items set down for decision tomorrow night. Both involve what is now known as Kimberly Gardens in Inkerman Rd. It appears that the following is about to happen:

• The loss of further public open space
• The potential for further private development down the track once this open space is lost
• The possible absence of ministerial approval for the amendment of a Section 173 agreement
• Deletion of agreement clauses without showing due cause such as evidence of ‘nuisance’ as stipulated by the agreement
• A strange ‘in camera’ meeting on 16^th March, 2010 which involved this property – a most unusual occurrence!

Questions to councillors:

How does the community benefit from this arrangement?

What reimbursement/contribution will council receive from this deal?

Has the public been told the ‘full story’ and nothing but the ‘full story’?

MLA blames council for childcare crisis

(Melbourne Bayside Weekly: Author – Henrietta Cook)