The minutes of December 14, 2010 record the following statement at the conclusion to Public Questions.
Cr Penhalluriack said; “I’m unhappy with all of the answers to Mr Varvodic with the exception of the one relating to Cr Esakoff. I don’t know what to do about it but I think that they are unnecessarily aggressive and I am just not happy about it”.
THE HISTORY
August 14th, 2007 (in regard to Friends of Caulfield Park)
The advertisement and flyer are not only misleading and deceptive but they are out and out intellectually dishonest……I also want to take issue with the comment; ‘Have Councillors been misled yet again’. If this is not a below the belt attack on the very hard working Officers of this Council, I don’t know what it is. That question has about as much credibility as asking; when did you last beat your wife. …We are however not prepared to be dictated to by self interest groups especially when those groups adopt cynical and dishonest tactics to deceive the public the very same public that we were elected to represent.
September 22nd, 2009 (in response to Mary Walsh)
“The very manner in which this question is asked is akin to asking when did you last beat your wife? The question could have been framed in a non-confrontational manner such as; Do you object to residents asking public questions?….Where however it is the same people Council meeting after Council meeting asking the same type of question and in the same tone as this one, then frankly their credibility must be diminished. I would recommend that you read Dale Carnegie’s book How to win friends and influence people….You have taken it upon yourself to constantly snipe at whatever decision Council makes as if you are always right and Council always wrong. More so the very tone of these questions and most if not all of your questions are belligerent and self serving….That question besides being not only convoluted and turgid was based on ignorance of accounting and process and as with this question had an in built bias that Council had got it wrong. Clearly, if you did not understand accounting concepts or process then you are entitled to query however your question did not in any way suggest lack of understanding, rather it was predicated on the very arrogant basis that you were right and Council was clearly wrong. Had you been less interested in finding fodder for your blog by demonstrating your credentials as an interrogator and that Council had got it so wrong and more interested in genuinely obtaining an understanding of the matters the subject of your question then your question would have been framed in a non belligerent and dispassionate manner without gratuitous comments….The very tone of your question was not only arrogant and puffed up with self importance but was I believe, and I stand to be corrected, posted on your blog…I do not however have regard for any group that is not representative and which lies, distorts the truth and has no regard or indeed respect that the people have spoken by electing Councillors to office despite the strongly held views of those groups to the contrary…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.
December 14th, 2010 (in response to Nick Varvodic)
“you have embarked on a ridiculous and ultimately a narcissistic campaign to discredit Council and specific Councillors for what I perceive is for no better reason than you enjoy having your name read out at Council meetings. Mr Varvodic, by your actions you have lost all credibility and your incessant questions are frankly no more than a joke.…. The second assumption is that one of my sons is a regular player of Frisbee and is a member of as you call it “the Frisbee group” There is no basis for you making that assumption. Once again as an exercise in intellectual dishonesty you make a leap in logic in assuming that as my son has played Frisbee in the park and that his name is on a facebook page that he is a regular and habitual member of this so called “Frisbee group” as you call it. I can only assume that you have been living under a rock and are unaware of Generation Y’s social networking. Facebook is a regular and usual system of social networking but the mere presence of a name on that site does not translate to my son or indeed any other person being a member of a group... I can only suggest that if you are serious about the issue of Local Law 326 and clearly by your questions you are not, or indeed if you are concerned about any other issue affecting residents and ratepayers of the City of Glen Eira, of which you are not one, you first purchase a copy of Dale Carnergie’s book, How to win friends and influence people. You have to date not won any friends and you certainly have not influenced anyone.… Mr Varvodic, as long as questions are being asked, May I also enquire as to when you last bashed your wife? That question has as much intellectual honesty as your questions to date in that there are inbuilt assumptions which are patently false... You seem to think that by repeatedly making unfounded and wild accusations those assertion become true. You appear to be a follower of the Josef Goebbels school who said if you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it’.
Glen Eira Debates 
December 17, 2010 at 12:05 PM
Sad, sad, sad that only one voice – Penhalluriack – has enough decency to pipe up and at the very least question the tactics that are obviously habitual by this so called ‘representative’ of the people. If this is the way that you continually behave Lipshutz, then you certainly do not represent me!
December 17, 2010 at 1:26 PM
Dear Cr Lipshutz,
First thing to start off with before anything, regardless of who is right or wrong in this situation making disgusting and offensive comments like;
“Mr Varvodic, as long as questions are being asked, May I also enquire as to when you last bashed your wife?”
This is absolutely unnecessary, unprofessional, unacceptable and abhorrent behavior on your part as a Councillor and you should be ashamed of yourself. You also make the assumption it is not the first time I have committed this criminal act. I find it incredible that only Cr Penhalluriack and Lobo made a statement and communication not approving of this. Maybe the other Councillors should have a think about how they would feel if such a statement was made publicly about them. You reduced my wife to tears when she read this she was so disgusted and offended, I hope you’re proud of yourself and your virtuous behavior.
You will be hearing more about this I can assure you of that!
December 17, 2010 at 1:32 PM
You are a **** (word deleted) Lipshutz. This is also a terrible reflection on the other councillors who said nothing and just stood by and watched, SHAME SHAME SHAME!
December 17, 2010 at 3:22 PM
My understanding of both the Local Law and Councillors Code of Conduct is that it clearly emphasises the duty of councillors to treat each other, officers and members of the public with respect. Lipshutz’s comments breach these directives and commitments. This though begs the question why nothing has ever been done to pull him into line, especially since these occurences are not ‘one offs’. Councillors who sit mute are playing with fire. Lipshutz must be censured, or simply prevented from making such hideous statements. Councillors’ failure to act could rebound on them via a defamation case. I would not be surprised if one day a resident did sue council.
Cr. Lipshutz must be made to understand that residents and anyone who uses council facilities, has the right to ask public questions and that the answers should be honest, complete, and transparent. Lipshutz’s constant use of ‘weasel words’ (such as ‘intellectual dishonesty’ instead of straight out ‘lie’ on most occasions) is lamentable. He must be made to realise that his ‘representation’ of constituents has been an abysmal failure and that those groups that he has denigrated in fact represent more people than the sum of his paltry few thousand votes in an election.
The final point I wish to make on this issue is that as Chair of the Local Law Review there is waiting in the wings another potential limitation on the rights of citizens to question and explore the truth – the threat of ‘vexatious’ questions. Lipshutz was the offical instigator of the ‘no surprises’ policy. we will soon have the ‘no public questions policy’ if he gets his way.
The post reveals the ‘history’ of this man. He does not belong in a council chamber. His antics, language, and intimidatory practices are more suited to the playground antics of bullies.
December 17, 2010 at 3:34 PM
Great post Colin, well said.
December 18, 2010 at 4:51 PM
Some further history – about how council has responded to previous complaints about Lipshutz’ language.
This from public questions 22 May 2006.
“Question to the Mayor. At the last council meeting, in response to a public question, Cr Lipshutz referred to a member of the public gallery as “bitter”, “aggressive” and “unrestrained” and accused her of asking “destructive” questions. Cr Lipshutz also criticised Cr Staikos for lacking independence. Will the Mayor acknowledge that such that such statements are contrary to sections 4.9 and 5.2 of the councillor Code of Conduct and sections 2.4.2, 2.4.7 and 5.12 of the proposed new Code of Conduct?
In future, will the Mayor commit to upholding the the councillor Code of Conduct by ruling such statements out of order?
The Mayor, Cr Feldman, provided the following response. He said: “In relation to the Code of Conduct there is no mechanism for the Mayor or any other Councillor to rule on whether conduct is or is not consistent with the Code of Conduct. The Code of Conduct is just that. It is a Code. This is different to the Local Law which specifically sets obligations on the Mayor to uphold the Local Law and to rule on points of order. The Code of Conduct is silent in these regards and provides no such mechanisms.”
Q. What do you think Mayor Esakoff would say to a similar question?
A. Exactly what she’s told to say.
December 18, 2010 at 10:09 PM
Here’s another answer to a public question regarding councillor behaviour. Esakoff was Mayor then (24th July,2007)
“Both the Walsh Report and the more recent Whelan Investigation into Glen Eira comment on Glen Eira’s consistent selection of a councillor ‘Code of Conduct’ which is ‘minimalist’ in that it lacks sanctions. In response to a formal complaint regarding one councillor’s behaviour in chambers on July 3rd, the Mayor has stated that the current ‘code of conduct’ is simply that – a code. Would Council respond to the
suggestion that any code that is unenforceable is basically not worth the paper it is written on and hence can only bring the entire council into disrepute by its inaction?”
The Mayor asked the Director Community Relations (DCR) to read Council’s response. He said: “Council does not agree with your suggestion.”
December 18, 2010 at 10:20 PM
PS – here’s another wonderful response on this topic
“Community expectations are that Councillors adhere to the Code of Conduct that they sign and agree to upon taking office. However, given that there is no
mechanism by which to evaluate Councillors’ conduct to ensure it complies with all parts of the code, how can the community have certainty that Councillors are held
accountable for any breaches of the Code?”
The Mayor asked the Director Community Relations (DCR) to read Council’s response. He said: “Council does not agree with the assertions you make. At the
conclusion of each electoral term the electorate as a whole rather than interest groups will hold Councillors accountable in the same way that Federal and State Parliamentarians are held accountable.”
December 17, 2010 at 4:14 PM
Words are cheap, cheap, cheat (!) Oops, must be a Freudian slip!! Here’s what gool ‘ol Lipshutz told the Leader prior to the 2008 council elections –
What do you see as the most important issue in Glen Eira? We must have balanced development but at the same time preserve streetscape and period homes. Additionaly rate increases must be contained, Glen Eira must be a leader in environmental matters .
What is one thing you think you can achieve if elected to council?
I can assure voters that responsible and decisive governance will continue. Rates will be reigned in and Glen Eira will become a much greener municipality. Planning will be reviewed.
Damn right lipshits. Our rates have really gone down; our suburbs are heaps ‘greener’ with no carbon emission plan in place, and shucks, you did happen to ‘review’ the planning scheme didn’t you? That was a real, real, fabulous success! You’ve done marvels for this municipality as can be judged from the above. Ah, jeez, I forget – it’s only been two terms thus far. Hopefully there won’t be a third!
December 17, 2010 at 11:37 PM
For reasons known only to councillors themselves, they have allowed Lipshutz to dominate all important committees of council. It’s quite extraordinary that one man is allowd to sit on the most vital supervisory groups of this council – local laws, audit, GESAC, Racecourse, and once upon a time the finance committee. For some, this may be reassuring. I honestly don’t see it this way. Allowing one individual access to all of these committees, when ideally they should operate independently (such as the audit and finance committees) is just asking for trouble. When ego, as is supposedly a factor with Lipshutz, is thrown into the mix, then the whole situation is fraught. Is there really noone else capable of sitting on at least two of these committees? I simply don’t feel confident that Lipshutz is the ideal councillor for all these important and often conflicting positions. I’d also like to know if in these committees he operates in an identical fashion to those other members who may not agree with him. Would he see opposition here as also ‘narcism’ or ‘intellectual dishonesty’? I’ve always believed that the hallmark of intelligence is when to keep one’s mouth shut.
December 18, 2010 at 10:48 AM
Since you’re quoting Goebbels, you might as well include the entire quote Lipshutz!
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
Yes, the truth is the greatest enemy of this council. Talk about ‘intellectual dishonesty’ in not citing the full paragraph!
December 18, 2010 at 11:42 AM
Lipshutz – (sentence deleted)……..BYE BYE…..since you love to quote things hows this one. You made your bed (x3) now lie in it.