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

 Message For The Record

• From: Ray Norman 7250 
• Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2016 21:38:51 +1000 
• To: Hon Rosemary Armitage , Hon Ivan Dean , Hon Kerry Finch 
• Cc: Launceston Projects
• Subject: City of Launceston's Credibility As A Local Govt Authority

Dear Hon Legislative Councillor’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.

Moreover, in today’s press it is reported that a council officer’s “refusal to grant a permit under the council’s booking and usage guidelines was inconsistent with the Malls By-Law” – http://www.examiner.com.au/story/4136166/court-loss-over-public-preaching/. This is concerning, and all the more so in the context of the state of the CoL Register of Delegated Authorities. Similarly, the apparent vagaries and ambiguities enshrined in the CoL Register of Delegated Authorities are of concern – See samples online ... http://images7250.blogspot.com.au/2016/08/delegated-authorities-samples.html . 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:

1. The shortfalls evident in the city’s ‘performance indicators’;
2. Despite the city having Tasmania largest recurrent budget – $100million – the city’s performance shortfalls are recurring and seemingly endemic;
3. 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;
4. The level of expenditure on consultancies over and above the city’s presumed ‘in-house expertise’;
5. The disinclination to consult and/or engage with the city’s constituency in meaningful ways;
6. 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 ... 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 

Copy of my email to Minister Gutwein CLICK HERE