FTR: City of Launceston's Credibility As A Local Govt Authority

For The Record
Forwarded Message
From: Ray Norman 7250 <raynorman7250@bigpond.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 16:02:59 +1000
To: "Peter Gutwein {Treasurer & Minister Local Govt.}" <peter.gutwein@parliament.tas.gov.au>
Cc: Will Hodgman <reception@tas.liberal.org.au>
Subject: City of Launceston's Credibility As A Local Govt Authority

Dear Minister Gutwein,

I undertake research in the area of cultural geography and consequently I have a particular interest in local governance issues. Local government is at the cutting edge of issues to do with ‘place’ – placemaking, placescaping, etc. Indeed, Local government’s purpose under SECTION 20 of Tasmania's Local Govt. Act in regard to “health, safety and welfare of the community” is fundamentally to do with ‘the culture of place’ – placemaking.

Given that I live within the jurisdiction of the City of Launceston, its governance is of interest to me on many levels – my ratepayer and research interests in particular and in concert.

As a component of my research effort I facilitate a series of social websites dedicated to local issues, community services and governance issues. Typically website users use these sites as references and to engage in discussions relevant to:

• Matters that are not addressed by local services including government;
• The raising and investigation of matters of local importance;
• The discuss various issues not supported by Council;
• The provision of a forum for points of view and concepts where Council holds alternative points of view .... Etc.
  

One issue that website users, networkers and others frequently raise relates to the quality of services provided by Launceston’s $100 million per year Council.

Speaking for myself, I am finding it increasingly difficult, and often impossible, to address issues that come to my attention through my research. It is particularly so in regard to gaining Council input given that Council treats most – all(?) – public queries as some kind of nuisance and an unwelcomed intrusion.

These repeated concerns about quality of Council services  – and therefore value for rates –  are amplified  when attempting to access Council information. For example, gaining access to information such as Council’s Register of Delegated Authorities has been met with all manner of obstructions. Somewhat concerningly when it was finally possible – after months – to get a copy of the supposed 'register' it was simply not organised according to the kind of rigour one would reasonably associate with a $100 million per year operation.

Indeed, what purports to be the City of Launceston’s Register of Delegated Authorities:

1. Carries no imprimatur that unambiguously identifies the ‘delegation’ with the City of Launceston;
2. Carries no date or other identifiable information that links it to, and lends veracity to, the delegation’s appropriate delegator – open Council meeting, or other;
3. Carries no recital of the delegation thus failing to provide delegations with ‘context and meaning’;
4. Does not identify the person/people to whom an authority to act has been delegated thus rendering the delegation somewhat ambiguous – and arguably compromised ultimately.
   

Moreover, the register is not freely available for public scrutiny say on the Council’s Website. In 2016 this seems to suggest that public scrutiny is not only unwelcomed but also to be discouraged. Indeed, when I showed an Alderman what was sold to me as ‘the city’ register of delegated authorities’ it was not recognised by them albeit that they were able to confirm being in a meeting when an authority was delegated. .... SEE SAMPLES HERE – http://images7250.blogspot.com.au/2016/08/delegated-authorities-samples.html

By extension, without the characteristics I describe it seems that it may be impossible to prove that the authority was indeed delegated which in its turn seems to compromise at the very least the veracity of the document sold to me as a copy of  the City of Launceston’s Register of Delegated Authorities. Furthermore, the issue of ‘Delegata potestas non potest delegar’ – one to whom power is delegated cannot himself/herself further delegate that power – seems, potentially at least, to be an issue. What protection does Council rely upon to mitigate against such an outcome?

Similarly, the Council’s charts of accounts fail to give any detail about expenditures of ratepayer monies and also fail to connect funding to particular initiatives. By way of example, there is a substantial amount of budget dedicated to non-core activities like gymnasia and sports facilities, many of which compete – and arguably unfairly? – with local businesses – and employing ‘conscripted capital’ from ratepayers to do so.

The overall effect of all this is that there is an apparent carelessness attributable to Council that uses little rigour in conducting its various operations and one that appears overly defensive, and deliberately uncooperative, when queried.

All of this would seem to fall outside what is determined as being the “characteristics of good governance” as set out on the Department of Premier and Cabinet’s Website – http://www.dpac.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/271170/Good_Governance_Guide_May_2016.pdf – and Council’s own Organisational Values –  http://www.launceston.tas.gov.au/lcc/index.php?c=69 .

More to the point, I am seeking your direct advice in regard to the adequacy of the City of Launceston’s Register of Delegated Authorities. In fact does:

1. The register comply with the Local Govt. Act?
2. The register satisfy any of the legal tests that can be applied to it in accord with the Act?
3. The register represent an adequate level of accountability for an operation of the size and complexity that is the City of Launceston?
   

I look forward to your advice and response to my queries in regard to the matters I’ve raised here given the seriousness of the implications relative to local governance in Launceston and its accountability.


Regards,

Ray Norman

Ray Norman

<zingHOUSEunlimited>

The lifestyle design enterprise and research network

EMAIL 1: raynorman7250@bigpond.com
WEBsite: http://www.raynorman7250.blogspot.com

“A body of men holding themselves accountable to nobody ought not to be trusted by anybody.” Thomas Paine

“The standard you walk past is the standard you accept ”  David Morrison
zHu Electronic Communications Policy.

This email is confidential, and is for the intended recipient only. Access, disclosure, copying, distribution, or reliance on any of it by anyone outside the intended recipients  is prohibited and may be a criminal offence. Please delete if obtained in error and email confirmation to the sender. The views expressed in this email are not necessarily the views of zingHOUSEunlimited, unless clearly intended otherwise.