At the first council meeting of the year, Lipshutz and Delahunty moved this motion – “Issues a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit for Application No. GE/PP-28482/2015 allowing the construction of buildings and carrying out of works, use of the land at 2-4 Princes Street for a Place of Assembly associated with the Synagogue at 574 Inkerman Road and reduction of the car parking requirement in accordance with the following Conditions….”. The permit was granted, allowing events to occur weekdays until 11pm as well as increasing the number of ‘celebrations’ to 400 patrons in conjunction with normal prayer services. There were 16 objections.
Our concern is not with the application itself but whether Lipshutz should have declared a conflict of interest and removed himself from the chamber. It’s not the first time that the question of conflict of interest raises its ugly head in relation to Lipshutz. We have had numerous instances of his failure to declare what most reasonable people would perceive as either a ‘direct’ or ‘indirect’ conflict of interest. Some examples to refresh people’s memory:
- numerous items on the racecourse where both Esakoff and Hyams declared conflicts, yet Lipshutz stated that because he wasn’t a ‘member’ of the MRC he had no conflict of interest!
- in discussions on a petition where he, Hyams and Esakoff were named, yet he and the other two voted not to accept the petition
- the famous ‘how-to-vote-cards’ episode and the permit granted to Emmy Monash
- of course the famous Whiteside dummy spit over a permit for a property in Inkerman Road associated with the Gutnicks and where public open space was ceded to the applicant. Lipshutz’s ‘response’ was to label Whiteside as ‘anti-semitic’. (http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/why-bother-asks-former-glen-eira-mayor-20121022-281jw.html)
But in 2008 he saw fit to declare a conflict on an application for a mere two double storey townhouses in Daley St., Bentleigh – “Cr Lipshutz declared an Interest in this item as he knows the applicant and works with him on matters of communal interest.” (Minutes of 26th February 2008)
Thus ‘communal interest’ and ‘knows the applicant’ was enough back in 2008 to declare a conflict. What about currently? The image below comes from Page 12 of a document that originates from the applicant for the permit referred to in the opening paragraph. We have also uploaded the full document. (HERE).(Source for the following: http://www.caulfieldshule.com.au/about-us/admin/policies/item/95-child-protection-policy.html)
The ombudsman has made it absolutely clear that the public’s ‘perception’ of a conflict is a legitimate concern for any public official as it reduces trust in both the official and the status of local government. Lipshutz did not state at any time that he was the ‘independent member’ for this particular congregation. No records of assembly minutes reported that he had declared any conflicts. No other councillor uttered a word. Perhaps they didn’t know. If that is the case, we believe that it was incumbent on Lipshutz to let them know! How many more times will this councillor ignore the advice of the ombudsman and the constraints of the Local Government Act? And how many more times will councillors allow him to get away with such actions?
Glen Eira Debates 
March 22, 2016 at 9:35 AM
Based on the above, it appears there may be a breach under S.78B(1)(b): “A person has an indirect interest in a matter because of a conflicting duty if the person is a partner, consultant, contractor, agent or employee of a person, company or body that has a direct interest in a matter”. Michael Lipshutz’ role appears to be that of a consultant or agent.
March 22, 2016 at 11:23 AM
There is a case to answer here. When Esakoff can declare a conflict because some of her relatives might be using an aged care facility that will take years to complete and avoid voting on the Frogmore case then this is ten times worse. Lipshutz is a high profile member of the jewish community. That does not give him licence in my view to ignore the overall community. I am also sick to death of every time that someone criticises or merely raises the question of conflict of interest the response is inevitably ‘antisemitism’. That is racism itself.
March 22, 2016 at 11:36 AM
Lipshutz is as blind as a bat when it comes to recognising or declaring any conflict of interests with the Jewish community. The sad truth is he cannot be trusted to represent the whole community for the betterment of the community. He’s a one eyed (MODERATORS: part of sentence deleted) in his fanatical commitment to this cause he is willing to walk that fine line between legality and its opposite.
March 22, 2016 at 4:58 PM
The sooner Lipshutz Esakoff Hyams and their lib hanger ons are gone Glen Eira will be a much better place.
March 22, 2016 at 5:05 PM
No, they don’t have to go, they just need to start acting for what’s fair for the whole community, or be up front on who they are, and who they want to represent. Either way would be honest
March 22, 2016 at 5:35 PM
Disagree. A leopard does not change its spots. Years and years of lousy decisions that favour one group is enough.
March 24, 2016 at 5:08 PM
Definitely! Too long on the Council.
Why are these people in the Council who have full time lawyer jobs earning more than $150K.
What do people think?
March 22, 2016 at 6:50 PM
Shutzy is there to look after the people who vote him in time-after-time – the Jewish community. Others matters are of only passing interest.
March 22, 2016 at 7:40 PM
I’m Jewish and I wouldn’t vote for any of them in a fit. They have done more to create antisemitism in this community than any other individuals. The Pillings and Okotels and Magees also have to share some of the blame for quack quacking alongside them.
March 22, 2016 at 8:06 PM
You fail to understand that 95% of the voters of Glen Eira do not know where the town hall is let alone the councillors. Apart from a room full of “council watchers” nobody cares. The rubbish is collected, the grass is cut in the park and the footpaths are OK.
Incumbency very hard to beat. Good luck with that.
March 22, 2016 at 8:14 PM
They don’t need to know where the town hall is. When you’ve got 40 or more units going up next door you find out pretty quick who the councillors are. How would you like to place a bet on Pilling getting back? Or even Magee and Hyams in Tucker ward?
March 22, 2016 at 10:30 PM
I doubt Pilling will stand again. Without Greens support he’s a goner anyway.
It is true that the overwhelming majority of voters are either politically ignorant or ambivalent or both. How else can you explain two councillors sacked for being part of an incompetent and disgraced Council being re-elected time-after-time.
March 22, 2016 at 10:21 PM
Well said ‘anon’. Macca, I bet you 10 to 1 that the old, old incumbents will be re-elected if they stand again. Just have a look at today’s Leader with Esakoff mentioned and a beaut picture of Hyams. You can’t beat that for publicity and its over 6 months to go to election.
March 22, 2016 at 10:42 PM
You need to talk to people living in Tucker and Rosstown. They are on the nose full stop. Anyone who has had anything to do with planning in Glen Eira will tell you what they think of these clowns.
March 23, 2016 at 6:37 AM
Almost 80% of Glen Eira is immune from large development. They are quite happy. The silent majority by far. Why would the vote for someone that wants to spread the pain?
March 23, 2016 at 8:22 AM
A correction Anon – the figure is nowhere near 80%. Another example of council providing dodgey data.
Secondly, we suggest that you have a close look at council’s submission to the residential zones review and note that for this allegedly ‘protected’ area, council is in favour of the ‘recommendation’ to increase height from 8 metres to 9 metres. That, of course, means 3 storey high dog boxes instead of a maximum of two storeys.
March 23, 2016 at 9:03 AM
Lipshutz gets away with not only conflict of interest and he is seen and heard making unprofessional statements in Council meetings. Once supposedly the President of Anti Defamation organisation and wonder the basis on which he left the organisation. Hyamsee and Esakoff backs him to the hilt and the 3 vote in favour of a community and liberal party they belong to. Rumour has it that the use of guns in Caulfield park was not approved by the police (who later confirmed that no approval was given) and yet both pulled wool over majority of Councillors. This is not only conflict of interest but deceiving the Council to approve guns deliberately knowing there was no approval. What do residents think of this behaviour?
March 23, 2016 at 10:45 AM
Whiteside is a racist. Lobo is a racist. The friends of caulfield park were racists because they used the term stormtroopers. Everyone is supposed to be a racist but not Lipshutz. Great work councillors that support this kind of rubbish.
March 23, 2016 at 1:54 PM
The use of the word Anti Semitic is an antiquated excuse use to divert attention when they are about to loose something or cannot win an argument.
March 23, 2016 at 9:11 PM
Macca, I tend to agree with ‘anon’. Although he/she is wrong as far as the percentage of NRZ zoned area available for residential development, which is much smaller (< 60%), he is probably right with his conclusion that ratepayers in particular would not change their votes much as a result of the zones issue. My argument to come to this conclusion is from different perspective.
Here are some real stats for you. Increase in dwellings for 10 years from 2006 was 6,141 i.e. new additional stocks in Glen Eira. Those next to larger developments constitute less than 10% of dwellings. Let us say that there are 1,000 of those, who are still currently concerned with planning issues. So, if you get 2,500 out of 100,000 voters ( 600/months). As long as there are yearly price increases (13% houses, 9% units http://www.reiv.com.au/property-data/median-prices ), those well off e.g. have a house or 2, not reach, but aspiring to invest more, feel that they are more wealthy. More importantly, is the opportunity to access more funds/loans through debt on their house assets. The Labor policy on negative gearing will/might reduce the amount of funds available (ability to increase debt) for everybody. How many of such voters are there? Glen Eira has about 31% renters, so 60% of population would probably think in terms of their property values and likely to support Libs and unlikely to change their voting pattern.
Of course, there are plenty of other reasons to vote out Glen Eira incumbent Councillors and I wish they would go (e.g. stale of ideas, incompetence, not representing ward concerns and ratepayers, or concerned only with their own narrow based communities).
However, most importantly, unless there are good candidates starting out to campaign now, the chances for change are not big. Less than 10% reduction of votes for the leading incumbents is not enough to unseat them. I may be wrong and I hope so, but I won’t hold my breath.