By CAM LUCADOU-WELLS
A STATE Government appointed monitor – at a cost of up to $40,000 – to oversee the Casey Council’s governance for at least two months is an “absolute waste of ratepayers’ money”, says mayor Sam Aziz.
The municipal monitor was appointed in the wake of a damning Victorian Ombudsman’s report into the council’s special charge scheme against 37 residents to seal Market Lane in Narre Warren South.
Mayor Sam Aziz said the monitor’s cost was “hugely disproportionate” to the $2204 interest that had been over-charged to Market Lane residents.
“This is such a disproportionate response it calls the judgement of (Local Government Minister Natalie Hutchins) into doubt, unless it is simply political payback for council’s and my outspokenness against State Government waste … or denial of a rate cap variation for Casey.”
Cr Aziz said the council had already implemented five recommendations from the Ombudsman’s report, including tackling its over-reliance on decisions being made in closed meetings.
He said Ms Hutchins relied on an “out of date” figure of 37 per cent of decisions made in closed council in 2014-’15.
The figure had reduced to 25 per cent in 2015-’16 – “comfortably” within the government’s 30 per cent benchmark, Cr Aziz said.
“As far as implementing the recommendations of the Ombudsman, council has already done it.
“It doesn’t need a municipal monitor coming up to $40,000 to Casey ratepayers to confirm this.”
He said Casey had also achieved above the state average on all measures of the latest annual Community Satisfaction Survey.
A Market Lane resident who didn’t wish to be identified told Star News the monitor was a justified move.
“It’s only for up to three months and I think someone should look at the way they do things.“
The council had been criticised in the Ombudsman’s report on 22 June for using a closed council meeting in 2014 to increase interest rates on the Market Lane special charge.
The affected residents were not given prior notice or the opportunity to object to the rise in rate from 4.25 per cent to 7.5 per cent.
“We concluded that the council had acted in a way that was wrong, unreasonable, unjust and in two respects, contrary to law,” Ombudsman Deborah Glass stated.
“In short, the council’s actions were unfair.”
Most of the affected property owners were against the charge – initially between $15,000-$20,000 each, plus interest on a 15-year instalment plan.
As a result of the interest change, the amount payable increased by 23 per cent, the Ombudsman’s report stated.
In May 2015, the council had dropped the interest rate of the charge to 6 per cent, and in July reduced the overall charge due to the roadworks costing less than estimated.
During the September investigation, the council agreed to drop its 1.5 per cent ‘administration surcharge’ to one per cent because it exceeded the legal limit.
