The Victorian Ombudsman tabled a report in Parliament yesterday concerning the conduct of a Hume City councillor. It was alleged that this councillor ‘influenced’ a planning permit on behalf of a business ‘associate’. Our interest in the ombudsman’s findings relate to the perceived conflict of interest of both Tang and Lipshutz and their involvement in the ongoing saga of the Frisbee affair. Readers may remember a response from Tang on this blog, where he stated: “The allegation is that I know a person or people in the group and further more that they are my friends. I accept that I know people that have been named to me as being part of this group. I have not spoken to anyone in this “frisbee group” prior to, during or after any game of Frisbee about their status. I personally have many friends who live, work or play in Glen Eira. I have known many of them prior to being elected to Council and I have met many more as a Councillor. Councillors should be part of the community and it is unavoidable that they will be friends with many residents, ratepayers or groups.
The ombudsman interprets such ‘relationships’ differently. On page 9 of the report, relating to Cr. Atmaca of Hume City Council, he states:
“In response to my concerns, Councillor Atmaca said:
There can be no conflict or perceived conflict by treating a friend or acquaintance in an identical fashion to all other people.
I consider that Councillor Atmaca has misunderstood the concept of conflict of interest. A person has a conflict of interest when they have a personal or private interest which could affect their role as a public officer; a conflict of interest can exist even if no improper act results from it.”
The ombudsman also goes on to make this statement (page 13) – “To protect the integrity of the local government system, a councillor is expected to exercise a high standard of conduct and must act positively to promote public trust in the tier of government said to be closest to the people. Without the public’s trust, local government becomes ineffective and superfluous.”
The recent truncation (censorship?) of the Recreation Advisory Committee meeting minutes, where the issue of unauthorised sporting groups was again (and again) discussed, does nothing to engender the public’s trust in the processes of this council and its mandate to be open, transparent, and accountable. Nor does the consistent refusal to directly answer public questions in any meaningful way engender ‘public trust’ in Glen Eira City elected members.
Glen Eira Debates 
February 10, 2011 at 9:57 AM
The conclusion to Minister Powell’s response to a question re the Ombudsman’s Report into Hume Councillor – taken directly from Hansard: “the majority of councillors do the right thing. They act with integrity, decency and honesty and in the best interests of their community members. Those who do not and who look after their own interests rather than those of their community will be sent a strong message by the Baillieu government. The Baillieu government will not turn a blind eye to self-interest or corruption in councils as the previous Labor government did. I put councillors on notice that those who act inappropriately will be dealt with severely.”
February 10, 2011 at 5:03 PM
The fact that council needs to truncate minutes is disturbing enough in itself. How is the general public suppose to have any confidence that things are presumably running totally above board in a Council when that happens? If you truncate minutes and not tell the full story then question will inevitably be asked?
The minutes of the Sports and Recreation committee meeting cite “the Frisbee group”. Cr Lipshutz claims there is not “a Frisbee group”, but many!!! As if that makes it OK to disregard and breach Local Laws???
They also cite “perceptions of conflict of interest” at this meeting. This ties in with what the Ombudsman has said in his latest report, yet there has been no action taken. Why is there a perception of a “Conflict of Interest”?
My official response from the Inspectorate claims “there is no relevant connection between Cr Lipshutz and Cr Tang and the Frisbee group” I would assume that being Father and Son is an unequivocal as can get in the “connection” stakes, no more need be said on that one. Cr Tang admits he knows members of the group as friends. Wouldn’t any reasonable person draw the same conclusions as our group did. I am still baffled to this day about the official answer given to me by the Inspectorate, and I still disagree with it.
Council issues this pathetic excuse along the lines of “as Councillors it’s inevitable that you will have family and friends who participate in Council related issues or assets”
That’s true and fair, nobody has a problem with this at all, the problem occurs when those same laws are not applied equally to all (and then you have the cheek to claim they are). For argument sake why are we REQUIRED to get a Permit and Insurance, yet the “Frisbee group” is NOT REQUIRED?
Surely any reasonable person would ask the same questions we are?
The point that needs to be hammered home here is the constant ducking and
weaving of Councillors. Their failure to answer questions, the potential “threat” of introducing “vexatious questions”, and guess who’s chair of the local laws committee.
I directed a question last meeting to an “appropriate officer” yet this was deflected by Cr Esakoff and prior by Cr Tang! WHY?
The powers of the chair have been used time and time again to avoid uncomfortable questions and to cover up what is embarrassing. They know exactly the question being asked but, if worded incorrectly they will jump on it in a flash an rule it “inappropriate”. They constantly knock back my questions for being over 150 words, (the guidelines only says should, not required).
How about they actually just answer the question and then it does not have to get repeated. Why the constant stall tactics, lift up the carpet and sweep it under, that will fix it!
February 10, 2011 at 5:37 PM
Nick, you’re dead right. Not only is this ‘ducking and weaving’ it’s running for cover as quickly as possible. The farce has now been ongoing for over 3 years and these incompetents still can’t figure it out. Lipshutz and Tang have a vested interest – they should not have been party to any discussion that took place and the rest of the councillors should have had the guts to tell them so and decide to finally do something.
Keep at ’em. The truth will eventually out and their conflict of interests shown up for what it really is – looking out for your buddies when this conflicts with public duties as the ombudsman stated.
February 11, 2011 at 3:15 PM
I cant believe what I am reading here and even more the fact that nothing has been done about this after what looks like years labouring on about the same point. But then again this is Glen Eira we are talking about. Why dont the administration put the sword to the Councillors and just follow the letter of the law. It looks like the Councillors have got this wrong but they cant admit to it. I’ll follow this with interest. I wonder what would happen if the the Council fined a Councillors son……the soap opera stories are endless.
February 12, 2011 at 12:48 PM
What is this Council really up too?
Surely open, transparent, accountable governance is not to much to ask?
All these recent issues and most importantly the C60/MRC one just shows you this Council is not fit to operate.
February 14, 2011 at 4:54 PM
To Lipshutz
Surely there’s a conflict of interest here, would it not be wiser to answer Mr Varvodic correctly instead of your constant ducking and weaving.The people want transparency and accountability from a council person not this continuous crawling round the outside of issues. Get to Lipshutz