Last night's clowncil meeting was typical of the tactics that are employed in order to try and silence any criticism. One individual was singled out by Lipshutz for potentially running the risk of being prosecuted for defamation. Why? Because she, like myself, has had the gall to raise questions about how much council officers get paid for doing their jobs in comparison to the pay scales of neighbouring councils. It appears that posting such information is 'defamatory' because it highlights the true facts.
But what I most resent is the public attempt to stifle discussion, to intimidate, and thus to silence!!! This is not something new for Lipshutz - he has done it time and time again (ie friends of caulfield park). May I suggest to this mouthpiece of the administration, that perhaps he should be careful in regard to his words - since this also amounts to 'defamation'!!!!!!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Hi Canine, I was the individual who remained nameless in the Council Chambers, but because I was present, felt compelled to clarify whether in fact it was my blogsite he was referring to.
Councillor Lipschutz was informing the gallery that I was throwing aspersions on the good reputation of the Council Officers (top table indicated).
In the aftermath, I explained that I was from memory referring to Council Bylaw Officers and I understood their title to be Council Officers. He told me that I should ensure that I am much clearer about who I actually mean, because it was assumed that I was saying the "administration/directors" were overpaying themselves.
Cr Lipschutz told the gallery that the books had been audited and salaries paid, were correct. After the meeting concluded in speaking with him, I said something along the lines of, from memory, I was referred to them (by laws council officers) being overpaid for their standard of educational qualifications. That their salaries were as high as a university degree staffer in some industries.
I wrote the next day by email on the Council's website and sought formal clarification that would explain why it was implied my comments were defamatory but to date I have not received any acknowledgement or a response to my requests.
I told the Councillor that I had always heard a uniformed employee referred to as a Council Officer and was he correcting this most common usage of the the word "officer".
I suggested that Council would be hard pressed to be successful in a Court of Law to have me charged with defamation based on my opinions as expressed that people appear to be overpaid based on educational qualifications.
As Port Phillip's website provided a duty statement for similar work, it was used as an example that was not obvious on the Glen Eira Website, but I was talking about similar work for thousands more dollars just from appearances. I said it was up to the Council to provide full details of job descriptions to avoid confusion with equal work for equal pay.
The issue goes even further than this Mary. What the community must question is WHY staff at Glen Eira are receiving so much more for apparently equal work than their neighbouring municipalities are prepared to pay? Why should a dog catcher in glen eira receive thousands more than a dog catcher in Bayside or port phillip when they are doing exactly the same thing? Why should someone with only 4 years of secondary education be paid $42,000pa? I want to know WHY this is happening and how this administration can justify such instances. Our rates pay for these people - we are entitled to full and comprehensive answers without being bullied and the attempt to intimidate us.
Post a Comment