Since Nov. 2015 when the Auditor General reported on Local Govt.the indicators that point to the status quo being inadequate grow almost by the minute. I came across a quote of Ronald Regan’s the other day, and I’m not predisposed to be quoting him, that goes ... “Status quo is Latin for the mess we are in”.
So, what the Auditor General was concerned about last year, as our American friends would say, has gotten a whole lot worse.
There is almost no question that there is a real need for a mechanism for review in matters to do with Local Governance in Tasmania. The newDEMOCRACY Foundation has been facilitating CITIZEN'S JURIES?PANELS/ASSEMBLIES in NSW, Victoria, South Australia. Given the positive reporting of their outcomes they do seem to offer a way forward for Tasmania in light of what appears to be systemic failures in Local Govt. SEE http://localgovtas.blogspot.com.au/2016/06/a-new-approach-to-democracy-in-local.html for more information.
LETTER TO LAUNCESTON'S THRE MLCs
Sent: Friday, 2 September 2016 9:39 PM
To: Rosemary Armitage; Ivan Dean; Kerry Finch
Subject: City of Launceston's Credibility As A Local Govt Authority
Dear Hon Legislative Councilor’s,
Last Wednesday I wrote to Minister Gutwein in regard to my increasing concerns about the City of Launceston’s accountability and its adherence to, and compliance with, SECTIONS 377 & 22 of Tasmania’s Local Govt. Act – and SECTION 22 in particular.
As I stated to the Minister, I have serious concerns in regard to Tasmania’s Local Govt. Act that arise via my research regarding Launceston’s ‘cultural geography’ and thus the city’s ‘cultural landscaping and placemaking’ . The city’s Local Governance is the ‘authority’ via which its ‘placescaping’ – its placemaking, its placedness, its sense of place, etc. – is fundamentally defined and managed on behalf of the city’s ratepayers and residents. ... SEE a copy of my email to the Minister below.
For the local Govt. Act to be effective, Council – Aldermen & operational officers in concert – must be continually mindful of its constituency’s aspirations and be equipped to deliver on the promise being so. My recent engagements with Council in regard to my research gives rise to a concern that this might not be the case – or at least reliably so. Likewise, constituents need to be able to access information to enable them to communicate effectively with Council and manage their own affairs appropriately.
By way of example, a primary research interest for me is the region’s/city’s museum and art gallery – its a fraction that represents the whole. As a ratepayer I’m conscripted to pay an undisclosed ‘levy’ of something in the order of $140 . Typically my enquiries to do the institution’s policy sets are treated as if this is some way confidential information that I’m seeking. For instance, when I’ve asked about policies to do with the disposal/deaccession – sale(?) destruction(?) disposal (?) – of work in the collection my requests have been met with obfuscation, annoyance and patronising responses. Given that:
- I have work in the QVMAG’s collection’s and thus have intellectual property invested the collections; and that
- I am a cultural theorist/researcher using the collections for the purposes for which they have been assembled; and that
- I am an investor in the institution as a ratepayer and taxpayer – albeit by-and-large a conscripted contributor; and that
- I have various layers of interest in the institution and its collections, many overlapping;
the serial and apparent disregard for my – and presumably others too – legitimate interests is concerning – and its almost as the default position.
Here again ‘the ratepayers’ who have additional and unwarranted costs imposed upon them – not the Aldermen or officer failing to deliver.
I have also written to Council expressing my concern in regard to Council management’s non-implementation of a Council determination of August 2015 to do with the QVMAG’s governance. Indeed, there are longstanding issues to do with the QVMAG governance and management, not to mention the institution’s ongoing sustainability, much of which you are all well aware of. In brief, generally my queries are side-stepped and/or trivialised while the issues I raise are always of a serious nature.
Of most concern in all this is the ways the ‘trickle down effect’ of failures of governance and management has:
- the potential to taint and impact upon Council decision making; and
- likewise impact upon operational standards – and ultimately its levels of performance.
I have in mind SECTIONS 65 & 62 – and (item 2) specifically. Currently, the invocation of SECTION 65 at each Council meeting has many of the hallmarks of a ‘deemed assertion’ rather than anything that can be depended upon given the matters of substance Aldermen are called upon to consider. Furthermore, recent and unfolding events point to the use of SECTION 62 to avoid accountability and this is very concerning.
There is much more to be said than there is the scope to adequately deal with here. Nonetheless, I submit that it is well past the time when local governance in Tasmania can be repaired or restored in an ad hoc way. Rather, it is increasingly clear that there is a need for a ‘root and branch’ operational audit plus a thorough revision of management structures.
This is particularly apparent in regard to the City of Launceston if some, albeit random, factors are considered together:
- The shortfalls evident in the city’s ‘performance indicators’;
- Despite the city having Tasmania largest recurrent budget – $100million – the city’s performance shortfalls are recurring and seemingly endemic;
- The inclination to grow the city’s administrative empire despite the lack of the fiscal wherewithal to sustain it – especially so via the provision of ‘regional infrastructure and services’ and careless of it impact upon ratepayers;
- The level of expenditure on consultancies over and above the city’s presumed ‘in-house expertise’;
- The disinclination to consult and/or engage with the city’s constituency in meaningful ways;
- The lack of substantial, inclusive and meaning communication with council’s constituency – social media initiatives notwithstanding.
It is quite clear that, on the growing evidence, local governance in Tasmania is in fact broken and breaking down – and in Launceston in particular. The need for the Minister to intervene in the affairs of so many Councils in recent times should provide sufficient evidence that it is time to act in the broad context rather than continually applying political band-aids.
Sadly there appears to be the lack of a viable mechanism and/or the political will to effect meaningful change. In other State jurisdictions ‘citizen’s juries/panels’ have been employed, and successfully, to overcome contentious issues and determine controversial issues. I believe that it is time to use this mechanism, or something of its kind, to engage the community and governance at all levels in Tasmania in an effort to initiate meaningful change. The level of change required to ‘un-muddy’ the issues and bring about meaningful change in regard to local governance in Tasmania is far from being trivial. ... SEE http://localgovtas.blogspot.com.au/2016/06/a-new-approach-to-democracy-in-local.html for more information.
The author, journalist and former political advisor Naomi Wolf said that, “in a fascist system, it's not the lies that count but its the muddying. When citizens can't tell real news from fake, they give up their demands for accountability bit by bit”... and its beginning to happen in Tasmania.
I simply ask that as independent representatives for the region, you use your good offices to address the shortfalls in local governance in Tasmania – and in the Tamar region in particular . Similarly, I request that work toward bringing about meaningful change in this important area of Tasmania’s governance.
Regards,
Ray Norman
Ray Norman
<zingHOUSEunlimited>
The lifestyle design enterprise and research network
EMAIL 1: raynorman7250@bigpond.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.
Copy of my email to Minister Gutwein
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:
- Carries no imprimatur that unambiguously identifies the ‘delegation’ with the City of Launceston;
- 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;
- Carries no recital of the delegation thus failing to provide delegations with ‘context and meaning’;
- 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.
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:
- The register comply with the Local Govt. Act?
- The register satisfy any of the legal tests that can be applied to it in accord with the Act?
- 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
“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.
------ End
