It’s clear that when it comes to Cr Lipshutz there is no such thing as ‘conflict of interest’. From the ‘debate’ that occurred regarding the Emmy Monash 4 storey aged care application in Hawthorn Rd comments were made that the applicant just happened to be handing out ‘How to Vote Cards’ for certain councillor/s. We assume that the councillor in question was Lipshutz, especially since prior to the meeting there was a very, very warm handshake between these individuals and both were on a first name basis.
On GESAC and extended car parking on Gardener’s Rd – it, of course, got the go ahead with the prospect of further car parking ‘arrangements’ to be undertaken since, as Lipshutz stated, council was the ‘victim of its (GESAC’s) success’! Again potential questions of conflict of interest were ignored with Hyams moving an amendment that sporting clubs and their officials should have extended parking rights (defeated). Magee agreed with Hyams. Given that both belong to such sporting clubs, one could ask whether this might constitute another conflict of interest?
We will report in detail on these and other decisions in the coming days.
Glen Eira Debates 
December 18, 2012 at 11:21 PM
Starting to be a real habit this conflict of interest stuff. First the frisbee affair and his son. Then lo and behold he’s an acquaintace of the senior member hearing the Penhalluriack vcat case so that means it’s abandoned and now this. But nah! None of it’s conflict of interest – mere coincidence the whole rotten series of episodes.
December 19, 2012 at 7:14 AM
One day a room full of greenies will turn up at a meeting to support some issue and these people may be on a first name basis with Green councillors. This will be no different to what you are accusing Lipshutz of doing. They will of handed out HTV cards as well. I hope you remain consistent in your observations.
December 19, 2012 at 11:10 AM
Greenies, pinks, reds, yellows whatever the colours all councillors should declare a conflict of interest in such cases. Lipshutz by the sounds of it didn’t.
December 19, 2012 at 3:49 PM
The only problem with your argument is – you are talking ‘hypothetically’ whereas what is infront of us is actual & real with Lipshutz
Lets wait & see if & when, rather than assuming it will of course occur!
December 19, 2012 at 12:15 PM
Totally agree Anonymous 1, everything Lipshutz touches seems to have a conflict issue surrounding it. Maybe his interpretation of a conflict is different to the rest of the community?
December 19, 2012 at 7:27 AM
Truly amazing how anyone can consider that an organisation”s active election support for a Councillor followed by that Councillor voting approval for that organisation’s contentious (in a residential area, “problematic setbacks, vegetation retention) planning permit does not constitute a conflict of interest defies belief. By then again, given the Councillor concerned one shouldn’t be surprised.