A comment received by Streuth –
Streuth, this site brings to light facts that should have been known to us, the voters, before the Council election. Let’s talk about Cr Michael Lipshutz. In his election material he promised nothing beyond saying how good he is and in how many different organisations he has been involved in and lead. He did not mention that in many instances, when he reached the leadership role there was a ‘revolt’ and he was replaced soon after or he resigned. Examples abound: President Bnai Brith Anti-Defamation Council, President JCCV, and the latest one now President LionFM.
We have to ask, why a person with an excellent background, education, so much knowledge, and practical experience, is perhaps being booted out from so many different community organisations? After all, Michael is a Community Worker most of his life and knows how communities work. A clue to the man is in an interview Cr Lipshutz gave to Jewish News jewishnews.net.au/news/2009/06/22/a-love-of-work-and-community/2102. Here are a couple of quotes:
“…when I was a kid I always said I would become prime minister -– people remind me about that today.”
“I considered a political career, but there wasn’t enough money in it and the future was too uncertain -– not a great option when you are married with kids. I have always enjoyed the law, so that was where I headed.”
Ambition and aspiration are excellent motivators to do things in life and should not be the basis for criticism. And I am not critical of Michael Lipschutz in having ambitions and aspirations for high Public Office or for making more money to better himself and family. However, the way one goes about fulfilling ones own ambitions and aspirations do matter in all public life as it affects other people’s lives and relationships. It is the how of doing things that brings into focus the ‘spat’ between Bram Presser and Michael. Here are a couple of quotes from Jewish News on Lion FM:
“…from the very beginning it was apparent that the station – supposedly an asset for us all – was being run in a somewhat questionable manner by people with no radio experience and a political agenda to push.”
“It was drafted as if everything to do with Lion FM was top secret – as if the executive were running ASIO or the CIA rather than a simple, inclusive community radio station.”
Now a similar thing happened at the Council, when Michael was first elected in 2005. He got 6 Councillors together at his home and essentially they seemed to form a voting clique to ensure that there is always a majority and collusion on issues of interest to that group. How would you feel being left out as Cr Robilliard, Cr Spaulding, and Cr Staikos were? Not only that, this kind of collusion is also a vote of no confidence in the CEO. As it happened ALL of them are liberal party supporters. Result is that no Councillor outside that clique has ever been elected to be a Mayor. Hey, the electoral democracy has gone out the Council chambers by that totally undemocratic act soon after the election. Stuff that, I cannot see ANY benefit in that for the community.
The other problematic example is the “No surprises Policy”, which seems to include the debate in the chamber. In fact there is no free wheeling conversation, discussion, polemic or debate of any kind in the Chamber. And the great Cr Lipschutz acts as though the Council Chamber is ‘his eminence Court’. He argues as though he is the judge e.g. On the one hand it is this … On the other hand it is that … On balance of probabilities I decide that it is whatever … Michael, this is not the way it should work. This is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.
Council Chamber, when considering items for quasi judicial decisions must engage each Councillor to present his/her independent view on an issue at hand with an open mind and NO pre-apprehension or prior collusion. It MUST NOT be manipulated behind closed doors to have a pre-judged outcome. The outcome must be determined by a vote that looks and feels like it’s coming from independently minded members of the Council. After all, that is the essence of the ‘Winky Pop’ case. Michael if you want a good judicial example of how it should work, then look at the way Full Bench decisions of the Supreme Court or High Court are made. Each judge considers in depth and argues their position of the issue at hand and then votes. And just to make it absolutely clear why it is done that way – in Latin argure means to clarify! Council Chamber is NOT a single judge Court like a magistrate Court for you to show your brilliance, or fulfil your ambitions to be in charge (e.g. prime minister). By doing what you are doing, you are destroying the environment for clarification of complex issues for the public to understand. That is ROTTEN, ROTTEN, ROTTEN.
Councillors must come to the Council Chamber with carefully considered factors brought to their attention and researched by each Councillor independently. And then at the Council meeting each one is to argue strongly for his/her view and convince others of the validity, value and importance to benefit the community at large. Clearly, if decisions are to be made to benefit the community at large their views, whatever they are, must be sought and considered. And here your disdain for community views, and lack of sympathy or understanding of, in particular activists’ views, is totally unacceptable and reprehensible. Here are just a couple of quotes:
“The Friends of Caulfield Park commenced by agreeing that the Pavillion was required but then the Council heard a litany of nitpicking negativity. No proposal was submitted and there has been plenty of time for them because the brief was a public document.” (see http://www.caulfieldpark.com/index.html for the extensive work and input by FoCP)
“I would however remind you that 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.” (Mary Walsh question cited FOCP, DOGE, GERA).
Michael, the worst part of this type of attitude and arguments is that you are abrogating the fundamental role of a Councillor to represent and advocate on behalf of your constituency: residents, traders, workers, professionals, etc. Instead you contrast the views of your constituents with the views expressed by Council Officers in their documents and papers. Again, you misunderstand the purpose of such documents. The Officers papers should be regarded as a Primer document for consideration of a particular issue or problem. It is definitely NOT a sacrosanct document that must be adopted. It needs to be analysed, dissected, and together with submissions from community members the issue(s) ought to be considered properly within the context of the issue at hand as well as understand the context of each submitter. For example the Officers submission usually is biased towards their perspective and understanding of the Corporate ethos, which may be totally at variance with the wishes and ethos of the community members! Each community submission may indicate the ‘tip of the iceberg’ of problems the Council may have. Instead you think that people make a “mountain out of a molehill” and you ignore them. You do not communicate with them, or represent them or advocate for them.
You are also forgetting that most of those that decide to write in are probably professionals in their own right and do a great service to the Council by responding and providing an input. If you would bother to value (in money terms) the input the Council receives by community members, just as you do it in your own professional capacity then you may have had some appreciation of the value of the work, effort, time and in many instances money involved in making a contribution to Council deliberation. Each submission is probably worth thousands of dollars. And what do you do Michael? You ignore them. You do not communicate with them. You are showing yourself as an arrogant, rude, with a ‘born to rule’ mentality. SHAME, SHAME, SHAME on you.
As I read what I have just written I begin to understand “why a person with an excellent background, education, so much knowledge, and practical experience, is being booted out from so many different community organisations?” I think Curious is correct in saying that you are clearly not cut out to be a Politician or be a Community Leader in any way, shape, or form. The best thing you can do is to RESIGN, RESIGN, RESIGN or CHANGE, CHANGE, CHANGE right now. Otherwise, you will suffer the indignity, ignominy and wrath of the community at the next election if you try to be re-elected.
PS. You have been a ‘mentor’ to Steven Tang for a long time. And he has followed in your footsteps. I think your mentoring has ethically disfigured this young man. The Frisbee case is another case of clearly young people having the support of an influential senior person that feels wrong on ethical grounds even if it is legally correct. It encourages flouting of the law. Surely, you do not subscribe to that? Please do it right for yourself, your family, your friends and the community.
Glen Eira Debates 