Posts Tagged Accountability Issues

People’s Park Option for redeveloping Glen Waverley Central Car Park

The redevelopment saga of Glen Waverley’s central car park has attracted another community option for best value consideration by Monash Council. This new community option, called People’s Park, was developed as a result of consulting local residents, traders, local school parents and other Monash ratepayers and residents and conducting due diligent business case research. The proposal is a substantiated and viable alternative for redeveloping the central car park, in addition to Cr Lake’s option.

This People’s Park option proposes partnership with Apple to build an underground technology retail and multimedia library center with two additional levels of underground car parks.

GWCCP People's Park

It recommends more and viable funding choices than Cr Lake’s option, which only pursues to sell the car park to fund a new library and a small public space, and allow high density developments that will threaten the feng shui of Glen Waverley and increase local population without providing  local and green open space in close proximity. The sale of the central car park will also mean the loss of GW’s most prized land that can potentially provide the local community and shoppers scarce green open space amenities and services.

GWCCP - Geoff's Option

March’s meeting documentation has revealed continuing preference for Cr Lake’s option to progress into Request for Tender.  Quality due diligent information to substantiate Cr Lake’s option against the John Monash Multicultural Square (JMMS) proposal (put in by another community group) was lacking, as there was the absence of evidence based business case information and a best value evaluation framework, resulting in the GW subcommittee (lead by Cr Lake) and council staff making subjective recommendations to reject the JMMS proposition. In the three public community consultation sessions (attended by more than 150 people) that Council has organized to discuss the fate of the central car park, MRI representatives who attended all 4 meetings, including the JMMS one, had witnessed over 95% of participants did not want the new library and high rise developments and prefer the central car park remain an open space. This strong non support for Cr lake’s library was never documented clearly in council’s public records. However, the March meeting documentation continues to misrepresent the strong Monash community’s non support for Cr Lake’s option during the community consultations and instead presented information that says otherwise.

Waverley Leader 5 April 2016 ArticleLike the selling of Monash and Elizabeth Gardens aged care facilities in 2013 and the deliberate and the long standing deficit financial management of the Euvena carpark, Cr Lake is once again leading and strengthening group-think decision making towards selling the central car park to fund and build a state of the art new library in the Glen Waverley central car park, a personal obsession that he willed on his constituents since the 2012 election, despite the community’s strong non support for his obsession.

Party politics stricken Councillors representing their own interests first is the growing new black in Monash, a proven fact also recently supported by the Waverley Leader, reporting the lateness and poor governance of council meeting in March and their growing failure to represent the community’s views.

, , , ,

Leave a comment

How ICT Savvy is Monash Council?

narcissismIn 2012, when Cr Lake thought the world is at his feet, he wasn’t joking about his narcissism. He seriously continues to think the Monash community should share his same dream and have a new library in his ward, Glen Waverley, since he got re-elected in 2012.

Narcissists seldom listen to others. That is exactly how the Monash Community, especially Glen Waverley residents, feel about their local Councillor who doesn’t want to know his constituents do NOT WANT a new indoor library in Glen Waverley. Furthermore, nobody quite understand Cr Lake’s dreamworld of what the state of a library is? It is only in the Expression of Interest (EoI) to sell the central car park (section 3.2.2 pages 3-6) that describes his dream – that the new library functions as a modern community hub space that promotes community learning for the young and old, fosters multi-cultural activities, even serves as an ICT innovation incubation centre that incorporates “technologies that have not yet been developed” (whatever that means) and provides  auditorium/conference facilities that cater for 600 people.  Realistically and with a logical mind, one would say that even NASA personnel would never claim their facilities would incorporate “technologies that have not yet been developed” into their infrastructure.  Competing with Monash University’s real state of the art incubation and startup facilities and expertise appears to be a very ambitious given in this EoI description of the new library / community hub development.

The development specs, even in its conceptual form, is the (most embarrassing) professional standard of how Cr Lake’s dream translate to a procurement criteria for potential investors buying the central car park and developing his dream library. Also fancy imagining Silicon Valley calibre innovators and high flying investors mingling with young kids and the elderly in hallways and sharing the learning/work spaces. Is this an “innovative” Monash perculiar architecture model of mixed human activity and architecture form interfaces?

What Monash want is a virtual library service, and yet their understanding and capacity to implement such forms of library virtualism is very much constrained by their collective level of ICT literacy, and being technology savvy is unfortunately about being mediocre users of today’s technology who have no idea of technology research advancement and innovation development. Conceiving that 3D printers constitute part of future library services without understanding their demand of technical CAD/CAM knowledge and support, and high total cost of ownership is also poor governance in council’s decision making and new service development – cost shifting cannot be the blame for future cost inflation and rate rises because of today’s leadership incompetency. Not long ago, Cr Klisaris thought a social media provider is a language communication specialist who can help improve council’s English language capacity to communicate its city planning proposals to the community (Herald Sun, 17 Nov 2015).

Lost in Translation

Disappearing into the sunset 1Narcissism is becoming the new black in Monash Council leadership and decision making culture, because of the GWAC plan to redevelop the central car park. 2016 is the time such narcissists should ride into the sunset and disappear forever, banished into exile, if needed.

, ,

Leave a comment

MRI says NO to defiant Councillors challenging DR reform guidelines

The Herald Sun Leader reported today that Monash Councillors “vowed to take Ms Powell on if she decided to block the rate being applied at Tuesday’s council meeting.

At the meeting, Cr Drieberg said she was proud the council was taking a stand, but Oakleigh ward Cr Theo Zographos said he thought the council was making a “huge mistake” continuing to apply the rate.

Monash is believed to be the only council that has tried to continue with the rate for the next financial year… here to read more“.


The State’s DR guidelines aim to reduce complexity and the inconsistent applications of differential rates across all Victorian Councils, which is the right thing to do.

In MRI’s Community Governance Report (3- April), they mentioned that they will NOT support some Councillors’ proposal to challenge the Minister over the Differential Rates (DR) reform guidelines that says DR applications will exclude Electronic Game Machines (EGM).  MRI sent an email to all Councillors to reconsider their stand on this foolish decision. One Councillor sent an abrupt and rude NO reply.

MRI re-emphasized Monash Ratepayers’ stand on this matter in response to the press article:

The Monash Ratepayers Inc (MRI) does not and will not support rebellious Councillors challenging the Minister regarding the exclusion of pokies machines differential rates (DR)  in the reforming DR guidelines.  The community views the legal challenge proposal is an unfounded and knee-jerk reaction to a state wide systematic DR reform that does not support a Monash Council’s legacy operational and administrative decision, which is also contributing to the fragmentation and inconsistency of DR applications in Victorian Councils.

 The decision to pursue this Ministry challenge was developed “on the fly” hours before and even during the last Council meeting. This means there has been NO proper legislative research and cost-benefit impact analysis, including impact on budget plans. Ratepayers will not fund such a reactive and unfounded endeavor that also reflects the bipartisan political conflicts and game being played by some Councillors regarding State and Federal decisions. Council is NOT the place for such bipartisan conflicts and debates.

 The loud & clear message to all our rebellious Councillors – MONASH RATEPAYERS WILL NOT SUPPORT YOU TO CHALLENGE THE MINISTER!!!”

The key reasons MRI does not support the defiant Councillors’ decision is they did not address the following important matters in their debates:

  • The costs of such legal challenge and whether these costs are out-of-budget expenditures;
  • The administration time and hence in-house costs of people in correcting the non-compliance in budget management systems should Council lose the legal case or when the State Government enforce mandatory compliance;
  • Details of other viable funding strategies and evaluation criteria to show best value selection of the first, second, etc preference of solution alternatives;
  • Well founded details of how the Monash EGM DR program fulfils the State DR Guidelines’ objectives;
  • Specifications of KPI measures to prove viable and tangible benefits would be delivered to our problem gambling community members.

They already collected ~$200,000 and spent on over charged consultancy fees that is significantly above market rates, to understand the local problems. If the ethical moral is for real, most of this money should benefit the troubled gamblers first, not to consultants for over charged research work (which excluded solutions development).


Leave a comment