Some more ‘non-answers’!!!
Published 11 months, 3 weeks ago in Where I Live.PUBLIC QUESTION TO COUNCIL
From: W D Wilde
Subject: Caulfield Park
“On October 2nd 2007 the Leader reported a statement from Cr Lipshutz that theFriends of Caulfield Park had failed to submit their alternative pavilion design and report to the Glen Eira Council. This was in error since FoCP have a receipt signed by the town hall reception desk dated 31st August, 2007. Also since this report is attached to the minutes of a council meeting Cr Lipshutz’s statement to the Leader was clearly more than a mistake
a) What steps do the GECC take when a councilor has made an inaccurate public statement?
b) Will the council be directing Cr Lipshutz to publicly correct the mistake and apologise to FoCP and if not why not?
c) Will the Council be informing the Leader about this mistake and requesting the paper to publish a correction?”
The Chairperson asked the Director Community Relations (DCR) to read Council’s response. He said: “FoCP at the invitation of Council attended a meeting with Council, the Architect and other stakeholders to discuss and comment on the design of the proposed Pavilion. FoCP indicated at that meeting that it would submit an alternative design and was invited to do so. Save for a small sketch which was circulated to the public and which was wholly bereft of any detail FoCP failed to submit any alternative pavilion design capable of critical appraisal or comparison with the proposed design. Council accordingly affirms Cr Lipshutz’s position.”
Some commentary:
- Was the Friends of Caulfield Park submission received or not? If they hold a receipt then this would indicate that the submission was presented in time, and according to council expectations/protocols. Therefore Lipshutz’s claim that it was not received is either untrue, or represents a failure of administrative staff to pass on the relevant documentation.
- Given that council comments on the fact that the ‘alternative pavilion design’ was ‘wholly bereft of any detail’ again suggests that the submission was in fact received (especially since it appeared in council minutes). More significantly, the ‘quality’ of the submission is irrelevant to whether or not Lipshutz’s statements remain factual. Further, it assumes that council’s own publicly disseminated plans were in fact ‘choka block’ with meaningful detail. Please visit http://www.gleneira.vic.gov.au/Files/CaulfieldParkMasterPlan_A3_HQ.pdf to view Council’s idea of what constitutes a plan capable of ‘critical appraisal and comparison’.
- Hence one can assume that council’s understanding of the word ‘received’ is not based on the material presence of a document, but rather on its perceived quality!!! This of course, does not address the central issue of whether Lipshutz knowingly made false representation at a public meeting and then again in a Leader newspaper article.
2 Responses to “Some more 'non-answers'!!!”
Leave a Reply
Your reply will not appear on the site until it has been approved
No no - I read it that they are STILL claiming that they never received it. Note , of the plan they deride as being “wholly bereft of detail” was one that was “a small sketch which was circulated to the public”.
And yes, Council’s ‘plans’ (as they advertise them on the internet) are indecipherable.
Having read this, and the previous post, i am simply staggered at the sorts of replies that are provided to constituents. The questions that really need to be asked are: (1) Does this Council actually believe that the community will swallow the so called answers and not see through them? (2) What does this say about accountability and ‘transparency’? (3) When all councillors adhere to the same administration line, what does this say about ‘independence of thought’? (4) How can a council condone any statement that is so illogical and proven to be inaccurate (ie. the Lipshutz allegation that no submission was put in by the FOCP). The community has a right to expect honesty and integrity. This appears to be in short supply!