Our apologies – but we inadvertently left out a couple of pages from the ‘Frisbee Report’ upload in the previous post. Included in this report was the following email (admitted to) by Lipshutz. It reads:
“My son has reported that he and his friends were approached by a council officer on Friday and warned off playing Frisbee in Caulfield Park (the lacrosse oval). I am advised that there is a regular Friday afternoon Frisbee game which is not organised and basically anyone can turn up. I consider it a bit rich to prevent a bunch of kids playing Frisbee. My son says that they play on that oval as all the other ovals are being used for cricket. Could you please look into this for me. were the matter to be reported in The Leader I think we would look a little ridiculous.”
The same report went on to state: “The Frisbee group is a highly organised group who are regularly using Council facilities without a Council allocation and without proper authorisation…….. If members of the Frisbee group continue their unauthorised use of Council facilities then Council should issue warnings and Infringements if required.”
Glen Eira Debates 
May 9, 2011 at 7:15 AM
If this is true this needs to be investigated properly. You can not run a transparent Council if these things are going on behind closed doors. Does he write these “lean on a Council officer’s shoulder” e-mails when any of his constituents get in a bit of bother….hhmmmmm I know who im writing to next time I get a parking fine.
May 9, 2011 at 7:45 AM
How can you have a proper functional council when clearly this evidence says that Councillors are pullng the cart in one direction and Administration are pulling the cart in another direction?
With reference to the frisbee group being organised or not. How can a Councillor say one thing and document it and then have Council say something totally the opposite.
This is absurd, and certainly from a public perception point of view, disastrous!
May 9, 2011 at 8:38 AM
Hey Pilling, lets see how you get them out of this one. Best double standard Ive seen in a long time. The last month with C60 and now this, what can you say……..
May 9, 2011 at 11:38 AM
There’s something really strange going on here. One name is blacked out in the attendance record of the sport & rec meeting. This is very, very odd indeed. If it is Linda Smith who took the notes and attended, then on what grounds has her name been removed. Even if it wasn’t her, why has the name been concealed? As far as I can tell there is no privacy reason for this except to make sure that if more comes of this doctoring of minutes, that the actual person who took the notes is kept out of the whole affair. Again, a cover up perhaps and not in line with FOI applications or conditions of the privacy act.
May 9, 2011 at 2:20 PM
If the Inspectors found that there was “no connection”, how do they explain Cr Lipshutz’s e-mail to administration?
Looks like the Inspectors Investigation might be flawed too.
Here comes Number 4.
May 9, 2011 at 2:54 PM
Regardless of the legality of any of this, I would have thought that integrity alone should have been enough for both Lipshutz and Tang to declare a potential conflict of interest in the issue. Tang has in the past declared such conflicts of interest simply because he is, or was, a student at Monash university. That’s, one out of tens of thousands. I’d argue that there is even more cause to declare an interest when the members of a group who are repeatedly breaking the law are friends/sons of yours and your input has the potential to have an effect on any outcomes. Since neither Tang nor Lipshutz apparently bothered to observe this course of action, then I believe they are fair game for whatever criticism comes their way. We expect better ethical (if not legal) behaviour from our reps.
May 9, 2011 at 3:40 PM
Insane is the only word to describe all this. Because Penhalluriack is true to his election promises regarding the C60 and the Racecourse, he’s silenced by the law. On the other hand, Pilling and company, don’t have a conflict of interest because they choose not to declare any, and they vote in secret. Truth, justice and the Australian way, has been turned on its head by all this. And the lawyers , especially Lipshutz, Tang, and Hyams, escape with their carefully crafted weasel words.
May 9, 2011 at 4:16 PM
We don’t want the Frisbee group fined, that’s not our argument however we must go in that direction to get our point across so it makes clear sense to any reasonable person.
We and anybody else for that matter can’t accept two groups playing on the exact same oval, one needing a permit and insurance and the other does not.
Why, because we are not related or friends with certain Councillors?
Surely any reasonable person would see this is just wrong, it’s not like we are saying relatives and friends of Councillors cant play in the parks, it just they need to abide by the same laws and rules as everyone else.
THAT IS NOT HAPPENING.
If our group plays without a permit we will be fined, its in writing to us from Council, and they will not rescind the letter.
Council then claim “the law is being applied equally to all”.
Blind Freddy will tell you it isn’t.
The Inspectorate found the “Frisbee group” and Cr Lipshutz and Cr Tang had “no connection”
You read the documents and tell me if there is a “relevant connection” or not.
The Inspectorate told me they did not have to declare a “conflict of interest” because technically they did not vote on the Frisbee group at a Council meeting.
Well then why would Cr Tang then state,
“Cr Tang advised that council had made the decision not to take any action with the Frisbee group back in November”.
Where is this vote?
What was the vote score?
What did they vote on?
Who voted?
If they voted as stated above by Cr Tang himself, was a “conflict of interest” declared?
If this is happening to us, who else is it happening too?
Why all the secret documents and decisions made behind closed doors.
Look no further than C60.
May 9, 2011 at 9:00 PM
unfortunately nick, you are wrong and the inspector is right. the council has deliberated and decided not to pursue that matter. that means the ‘frisbee’ issue was not tabled for council meeting. this is quite normal at the briefing session, which decide on what should or should not go onto the agenda. of course any councillor can raise an issue at the open council meeting. but then he/she need support of others to get an issue to be considered. clearly, that issue did not have enough support to be considered by the council. publicity is much more effective. keep on keeping on.
May 9, 2011 at 11:57 PM
You’re both right and wrong forthright. Briefing sessions are not decision making sessions. No decisions are meant to be made. The fact that a report written by officers recommends actions and nothing happens is a decision. That’s illegal – especially since this has been going on for years now. The inspector was right because all he’s got to go on are council meeting decisions. If nothing gets to council then his hands are tied. This council decides things all the time that then somehow make it into the fine print sometimes months later. Not good enough if you’re acting in accordance with being open and transparent. Newton is the master of this and he’s got willing allies in Hyams, Lipshutz and the rest of the gang – including Pilling.
May 9, 2011 at 5:44 PM
Hi Nick, good on you for exposing this. Have you given all this recent information to the Inspectors? Im sure they would be very interested in it as we all are. I doubt this is the case but you never know maybe the Inspectors where told little white porky pies, a la C60. Just food for thought.
May 9, 2011 at 6:56 PM
This is so terrible,
Hiding the truth.
Conflict of Interest.
Making decisions behind closed doors.
Lack of transparency
Nepotism
This all equals sack the lot of them.
May 9, 2011 at 9:06 PM
Keep at them Nick and do not give up…but please include Newton in your sights as Lipshutz and Tang do not act unless told to do so by the Master.
May 10, 2011 at 1:02 AM
IT would seem that the council is promoting it’s two rule system that of them and us. It is rather a concern to me that this group whether organised or not seems to be hurling frisbees every week qt the same place and time. If all other ovals are being ofr have been used over the weekend , which is very limited for most people then it appears that this is the only ‘FREE OVAL’ session for each weekend and it would be a good idea if these big stron youths had the decency to take out an insurence policy in case their missiles hit a small child in the eye as he/she triede playing a family game of cricket on our crowded sporting facilities which are to be even more crammed when C60 comes.
May 10, 2011 at 7:33 AM
Lipshutz,
What a load of BS. ALL the ovals are not use like your e-mail claims, ….(rest of sentence deleted: moderators)
What does can you look into this for me mean?
If your asking how I know its because I live across the road from Caulfield park and see this sham going on with my own eyes every week.
If only we could be in the inner circle.
May 12, 2011 at 11:20 AM
Goodness me! If the elected council members manage our parks and open spaces with what appears to be such unfairness and inequality, then how can it be trusted with more crucial issues like town planning and fiscal matters. This concerns me greatly!!
May 13, 2011 at 9:52 AM
I simply don’t understand why kids/people are ‘warned’ off playing on a park? Others seem to use it for the same purposes without any problem. The ‘system’ is clearly broken when rules are applied differently to certain groups, and it is so difficult to address the situation!