Glen Eira Debates

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.

It seems that our man capable of making ’hard decisions’, Cr. Lipshutz, has recently made another such ‘hard decision’ in a long career of resignation after resignation. Reading between the lines there are two possible scenarios – either he was pushed, or he spat the dummy a la Whiteside. Either way, it seems that Michael is having trouble holding on to senior executive positions in a number of organisations – oh, and let’s not forget his decision not to stand for pre-selection when beaten by David Southwick!

Why, oh why, we ask ourselves is this poor bloke having such an apparently rotten time these past few years? What is it about these organisations that makes him ‘resign’ – or could the fault possibly lie with our illustrious councillor? We don’t know! We’re only following the dots and a track record that includes:

• Two attempts (one successful) to gag councillors via the addition of a ‘no surprises’ clause to the local law
• Disdain for ‘community activists’ (read here anyone who disagrees with him)
• ‘We know best’ attitude

These traits may be pivotal in Lipshutz’s sudden resignation from the new radio station. Our question however, is how well such traits serve the people of Glen Eira? Maybe it’s time for another resignation Michael?

The article (22^nd October, 2010) from the Jewish News follows. Does anyone find any resemblance to the state of play at Glen Eira Council?

“MELBOURNE’S Jewish radio station has a new leader of the pack. Following the resignation of Michael Lipshutz earlier this month, John Kraus has taken over the role as president of Lion FM.

The Mizrachi member faces the tough task of steering the station back on track after a troubled few weeks.

Lipshutz’s resignation came amid accusations that the board was censoring views that did not reflect board members’ opinions on Israel, and that the volunteers’ agreement that presenters were forced to sign impinged on their right to free speech.

There were also accusations these practices were in breach of the Australian Communication and Media Authority’s community radio standards, which require stations to promote diversity and encourage community participation.

Kraus, who has held a number of communal roles in recent years, including chairman of Leibler Yavneh College and treasurer of the Jewish Community Council of Victoria, said he hopes to resolve these issues “quickly and efficiently, so the station can move forward”.

“I will be proposing that Lion FM establish an editorial board and a formal process for resolving disputes via a separate disputes committee. The editorial board and the disputes committee will be independent of the executive and contain representatives from across the community,” Kraus said.

Regarding the controversial volunteers’ agreement, Kraus said it would be reviewed and comments and suggestions from the community would be welcome. He added, “My hope is that Lion FM becomes the unofficial voice of the Melbourne Jewish community – a voice that is as diverse as it is rich and a voice of which we can be  proud.”

Lion FM presenter Bram Presser, who had refused to sign the agreement claiming it “dictates what the content and political bent of our show should be”, told The AJN he was encouraged by Kraus’ appointment. “We had a very productive conversation and I believe John has the station’s best interests at heart,” Presser said”.

Printed below are extracts from the Municipal Association of Victoria’s (MAV) publication “Citizen to Councillor: A Guide for Prospective Councillors.” As previously requested, please feel free to assess each councillor against the following job specifications and give them a ranking out of 5  – either as an overall mark, or for each criterion. 

• Councillors guide the development of local policies, set service standards and priorities and monitor the performance of the organisation. Other responsibilities of councillors include determining the financial strategy and budget, allocating resources, and liaising with other levels of government, the private sector and non-government community groups. 
• A major task for councillors is to represent their constituents and advocate on their behalf on a wide range of issues.  
• Councillors, both individually and collectively, are accountable to their community. They have a responsibility to respond to requests for information, be prepared to explain the reasons for their own or the council’s actions, and defend council proposals.  
• The process of drawing up the Council Plan generally includes consultation with the community and enables councillors to influence the direction of the council.  
• Councillors contribute to the review of the council’s planning scheme including the Municipal Strategic Statement, and actively participate in the development of local planning policies to form a sound strategic basis for decision making.
• Councillors provide an invaluable link between the community and council. A council should consult and engage its community and, in so doing, reflect the aspirations of that community. 

We’ve received this comment from Streuth and decided to put it up as a full post.

Streuth Steven, Gee you do get yourself into a bother don’t you? You do want the truth but can you handle it? Here it is the way I see it. You don’t bother to communicate with people when they want you to communicate with them; you don’t respond to emails; you don’t respond to voice mail. You only pontificate on those things that you think people need to hear without listening to what they’ve got to say first of all.

And what do people complain about? That the council including administration and including each councillor do not listen to residents views. We wanted change, change in the culture of the council that has been around now for ten years. The opportunity was there at the time of the CEO appointment because the CEO creates, controls, and spreads the culture. At the reappointment time there was a choice. A clear choice between advertising for a change, or continuing along the same course for another 5 years. Instead we got a total compromise of extension for two years. A disaster for all involved. As a result we got a third municipal investigation. What a catastrophe!

Tell me how does a young whippersnapper like you become so arrogant? How can you even mutter the following words that the Herald Sun (Jan, 11th) picked up: “Glen Eira Council needed a new start, and what says new start better than a young face?” Hells bells Stevey boy, to be Mayor takes a lot more than a ‘young’ pimply face! Besides, you’re so sure of yourself aren’t you? So disdaining of others’ points of view? So who is the guilty party? Who is the culprit? You are Steven. You proposed the compromise! Everything then was stuffed up. Newton went to lawyers, and the bill to residents reached over $40,000 – at least!! Tell me Stevey, what would have been so wrong with advertising the position? Don’t tell me that there’s anything wrong with testing the waters out there? Perhaps Glen Eira might have got an absolute champion. But your decision to compromise was the start of everything. Newton fought like hell, and lawyers licked their chops. What a stuff up of gigantic proportions!

Now let’s get to real business. You complain about character assassination. I’m not talking about Mr. Steven Tang. He is an undoubtedly a nice guy, clever, articulate (if a little verbose). I’m talking about Cr. Tang – the Mayor, our leader, our saviour, our representative!! The checklist that was put up a few weeks back on this site is what I’m talking about. How do you reckon you go on that checklist Stevie? Do you really believe that as Mayor you have done justice to the majority of those criteria? Well, I had a really close look at this checklist and awarded you, as Mayor, the following scores –
Governance: 15/75 which equals 40%. A fail Steven. Why you ask? What have you done about leading and supporting councillors? And I love the bit about ‘inspiring’ others. You’ve inspired them all the way to the Municipal Inspector. Instead of ensuring ‘effective communication’ we’ve had one councillor resign under your watch and conflict between administration and councillors. Great stuff, great governance!

Next is chair of council. This is your only pass mark Stevie – 13/25 equalling a bare pass mark of 50%. Have you really promoted high standards of democracy and ‘internal governance’? Sorry mate, no way!

Then there’s ‘supporting the community’. Oh woe is us on this criteria – a dismal 12/30 which equals another fail at 40%. How can you advocate on behalf of the community’s needs, when you don’t even know what these needs are cos there’s never been any attempt on your part to really find out! As to community governance and enterprise, of course not. That would go against the grain of autonomous organisations beyond the ken of council.

In the end Stevie boy, you might be a bright spark at Uni, but as a Mayor there’s a lot left to be desired. Let’s call a spade a shovel shall we and state that in your reign things have only gone from bad to worse. Oh by the way if you doubt any of my marks then just ask – I’ve got plenty of arguments to put forward that will conclusively prove my judgements.
Of course your failure is in actual fact not just your failure but the team’s failure – that is, the nine councillors and the CEO. I do not believe that it was you that lead to this behaviour, although I said it was your fault, I do not believe it was only you. A mentor, much more experienced than you, much more politically minded and getting much more out of being a Councillor than you. And that person is of course the powerbroker and ‘kingmaker’ – Cr Lipshutz. As the saying goes, with a ‘mentor’ like this, who needs enemies.

We received the following comment from someone calling themselves ‘Steven’. We presume it comes from Steven Tang and hence are reproducing it as a full post.

I do not usually worry about the comments of a blogsite, which is prone to making wild accusations, prone to fundamental errors of fact* and prone to putting a negative slant on any Council decision**.

However, I write in response to what I view as character assassination of the worst kind.

Despite having an allegation of conflict of interest fully investigated and determined by the Municipal Inspector some posters to this blogsite have felt that it is ok to make wild accusations against my character.

In response to these spurious allegations:

1. I have a general belief that the parks of Glen Eira are there for people to use and Council should do its best to ensure they are suitable to support a diversity of recreational interests.
2. I have been found by an independent umpire to have no relevant connection to a “frisbee group”.
3. The allegation is that I know a person or people in the group and further more that they are my friends.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. If I wasn’t the subject of such a vitriolic campaign against my character I would not have to give intimate details of how well I do or do not know individuals in the Glen Eira community. The fact is, however, that I have spoken to a handful of people who have identified themselves on this blogsite more than I have spoken to people who have been said to me to be part of this “frisbee group”.
7. A poster to this blogsite is being less than forthright in his campaign against my character. The poster has previously made complaints to me and to the Council about “Indians” playing cricket, Russians playing soccer and other groups of soccer players. These groups appear to be in the same position as the “frisbee group”, but you do not hear about them because it doesn’t fit the narrative.
8. Whilst I accept that the Caulfield Park Social Soccer group has had issues with the law, I do not believe there is widespread concern that people are using the parks. The permit and allocation system provides the security of exclusive use for any group that has an allocation at that time. I strongly encourage any group that wants to compete in a regular organised game to enter the permit and allocation system. It works for the thousands of residents and ratepayers that play and train for the hundreds of active Glen Eira-based teams each and every week.
9. Again it does not fit the Caulfield Park Social Soccer Club narrative of persecution to acknowledge that the local law has been used to respond to a complaint that one of the above-mentioned groups have been interfering with the allocation of a local junior sporting club.
10. The local law is no different to these comparison clauses,

Stonnington:

Use of Council Reserves
517 A person must not, without a Permit, in or on any Council Reserve:
(a) pitch, erect or occupy any tent, marquee or temporary shelter;
(b) light any Fire or allow any Fire to remain alight unless in a fireplace
provided by Council;
(c) hold any circus, carnival, fair, event, commercial or promotional
activity;
(d) conduct or celebrate any wedding;
(e) erect, fix or place any advertisement;
(f) conduct or attend any rally, procession, demonstration or other
public gathering;
(g) conduct, participate or prepare for any competitive game or sport;

Monash
Activities Prohibited in Reserves
18. In a reserve, a person must not:
18.1 unless that person is a player, official or competitor in or at a sporting
match or gathering, enter upon or remain on an area set aside as a playing
ground during the course of a sporting match or gathering;
18.8 play, engage in or practise any game or sport, whether or not in
accordance with a permit issued under this Local Law, in a manner that is:
18.8.1 dangerous to any other person in the reserve; or
18.8.2 likely to interfere with the reasonable use or enjoyment of the
reserve by any other person; or

5 penalty units

Activities which may be permitted in Reserves
19. In a reserve, a person must not, without a permit,
19.4 play, organise, practise or engage in any organised competitive sport or
game;

3 penalty units

11. There is no exact science in applying these laws, but Council needs to be mindful of the conditions of the ground and the risk that the ground will not be suitable for ongoing use if its surfaces are not protected to some extent.
12. The local law has been particularly useful when AFL football clubs run drills, including the dragging of weights, in Glen Eira parks.
13. The permit and allocation system and the rotation of the use of grounds allowed Council to provide the maximum use of sporting grounds in recent years, whilst other grounds elsewhere had been cited as either closed or not suitable for some sporting associations to allow match play.
14. People have a right to question and debate Council policy, but on this occasion the ongoing character assassination goes beyond the pale. I had thought that the finding of the independent umpire would be enough to put this issue to bed, however, I was mistaken. Some posters to this blogsite will clearly create a narrative to suit their purposes without regard for findings such as these. If you wish mere friendship to be the test of Councillor conflicts, elect Councillors with no connection the Glen Eira community.
15. I err on the side of maximising the use of our parks. This requires a balance between encouraging general use of the sporting grounds and protecting the grounds for those clubs who provide an outlet for so many in the community to engage in competitive sport. My gut feeling is that the current balance is appropriate.

*see for example – Glen Eira and Planning: Always the Odd Man Out – so called development levy compares a Developer Contributions Plan Overlay at Glen Eira with other Councils’ Public Open Space Contribution. NB: Glen Eira’s Public Open Space Contribution Schedule is contained in the same location as the comparison Councils, Schedule to Clause 52.01.

**There has been a highly selective comparison of planning outcomes outside of Glen Eira. There is a suggestion that part of the reason Glen Eira is developing the way it is is due to a lack of fight at VCAT. I do not believe any metropolitan Council is immune to losing arguments at VCAT about appropriate built form. Glen Eira sends representatives it believes can best represent the Council’s position, there are no guaranteed results. Similar scale developments have recently been heard in http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2010/1454.html and http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2010/1526.html.

Several years ago the Victorian Local Governance Association (VLGA) produced a publication entitled ‘The Role of the Mayor: A VLGA Checklist.’ Listed below are some of the qualities considered vital in those individuals undertaking the role of Mayor.

 We ask any interested reader to assess Tang against these criteria – remembering of course that he is now in his SECOND term as Mayor, and has previously been Deputy Mayor. Please provide a grading of 0 to 5 against any (or all) of the following, or if preferred, an overall grade. 

Governance

• to provide a source of leadership for Council and Community
• to provide a symbol of democracy to the community
• to lead, inspire and support the team of elected Councillors
• to be a source of inspiration for Council staff and the community
• to ensure effective communication and respectful relationships among Councillors
• to ensure effective communication and respectful relationships between Councillors and Administration
• to ensure there is effective communication between Council and the CEO in pursuit of Council’s goals
• to promote the interests of the local government and the community
• to maintain political stability and community credibility of Council
• to generate community cohesion and inclusiveness
• to model high standards of behaviour and practice
• to project values and standards into the community
• to govern for all members of the community
• to articulate collective aspirations of the community and promote collective endeavour
• to defend the interests of the community and the local government of the community  

Chair of Council

• to preside efficiently, firmly and fairly over Council meetings
• to promote high standards of democratic governance and internal governance
• to guide meetings to ensure respectful conduct at all times
• to facilitate participation and inclusion of all Councillors
• to exercise the casting vote where a Council vote is tied  

Supporting the Community  

• to advocate on behalf of community programs, needs and wellbeing
• to attend community functions on a fair and equitable basis
• to be knowledgeable about community programs and activities
• to promote community development
• to strengthen community governance and enterprise
• to strengthen communities against external threats 

As of 1.40pm on Thursday afternoon, our post revealing the shenanigans over ‘(un)authorised sporting activities’ and council’s failure to act for years and years, has now received the most correspondence and views in our short history. So in response to this public outcry we again put up those questions which must be answered:

We ask, and demand answers to:

1. What role have both Lipshutz and Tang played in this whole affair?
2. What role has the administration played in not enforcing the law?
3. Who makes decisions on policy in this council?
4. Where is the ‘transparency’ that the Municipal Inspector demanded? Why are decisions continually made behind closed doors?
5. Why was Lobo’s ‘request for a report’ defeated 8 to 1? Who is hiding what?
6. Does this council believe that through its non-action that it is serving the principles of ‘equal justice’ to all?

PS: One tiny update: As of 1.58 pm our stats for September read: 7, 348 hits.