FOR THE RECORD
From: Ray Norman <raynorman7250@bigpond.com>
Date: Wednesday, 27 June 2018 at 6:08 pm
To: Alderman Emma Williams <Emma.Williams@launceston.tas.gov.au>
Cc: Launceston Council <council@launceston.tas.gov.au>, "Peter Gutwein [Minister Local Govt.]" <peter.gutwein@parliament.tas.gov.au>
Subject: FW: THE EXAMINER AND SMOOTHED OVER VANDALISM
Dear Alderman Williams,
I'm somewhat surprised at all this given that I have written to all the aldermen articulating my concerns and in considerable detail. I've also discussed the issues in detail face-to-face with Ald McKenzie and that seems to have been to no avail. It also appears as if 'Council' has taken the stance that accountability is discretionary and that it is OK to look the other way if it is deemed that the matter is trivial. Who does this class of deeming?
It would also appear that the Director of Local Govt. is happy enough for the Council to deem matters to be trivial, irrelevant, whatever. When that happens, we are indeed on that slippery slope to corruption by discretion. However, as nothing more than a hapless ratepayer, as you are no doubt aware, I'm of the opinion that we're as likely as not to be on that slope already based on the evidence to hand.
However, you seem to be seeking an alternative process than the one that has been employed up to now. As LAUNCESTON PR points out in their email to you the two key factors are "ACCOUNTABILITY and TRANSPARENCY". These two factors seem to have been missing from my vantage point. All that I've experienced is admonishment from the Mayor and obfuscation from the operational wing. Yet the facts remain to be the facts!
As a ratepayer with direct professional experience in the area I find where we have come to disappointing to say the least. But since you seem to be interested let me catalogue my experiences in this case.
- Firstly, I spotted the anomaly and emailed the Mayor and Aldermen May 2 – refer to your email records for confirmation. At this point, and immediately once the veracity of my advice had been confirmed, it would have been appropriate to publicly acknowledge the mistake/oversight/breach given that it is a civil rather than a criminal matter. This could have been achieved very quickly – indeed within hours rather than days.
- Secondly, at this point the copyright owner could/should have been apologised to, and publicly, and engaged within a public rectification process directed towards honouring the artist's/author's intellectual property and the maintenance of the work's cultural integrity.
- Thirdly, the work required to restore the work's integrity could commence against a background of a publicly announced timeframe given the civic status of the work and the implied public ownership of it. The Stephen Walker Tasmania Tableau belongs to the citizens of Launceston given that it was gifted to the city on the occasion of The Examiner's sesquicentenary. In 'law' it may belong the Launceston City Council but in 'lore' it now, arguably, belongs to 'Launcestonians'. Council is merely the work's 'trustees and custodian' unless or until it relinquishes that role for whatever reason.
- Fourthly, we are now on the cusp of July and all I see is obfuscation and denial and particularly so upon the spurious ruse that there are no costs involved in meeting Council's obligations under the Copyright Act – see Council Agenda Monday 4 June 2018 and the answers provided to my question … Q7 in particular. I submit that, arguably, all this is mischievous nonsense if not deliberately deceptive. Whatever, unfortunately, and sadly so too, it is the point that the whole process you seem to stand ready to defend has brought us to.
Notwithstanding, for an accountable process to be implementable Council would need to have acknowledged, or have been prepared to acknowledge, its status and function as set out in the Local Govt. Act. That is so albeit that SECTIONS 62 & 65 facilitates the circumvention of accountability protocols. That is the protocols the 'operational wing' may find inconvenient, or even somewhat onerous, and for whatever reason – trivial or substantive. Here it is typical that the ratepayers lose out at the expense of bureaucratic convenience and/or expediency.
Also, all this sets up the circumstance where the organisation might need a 'spin doctor', and in Launceston's case it seems that it does, in order to facilitate the marketing of SECTIONS 62's & 65's outcomes and aspirations as facilitated by Council's operational wing. Clearly, this runs counter to the Minister's criteria for 'good governance'.
It turns out, albeit serendipitously, that this incident is an exemplar of the aldermen's collective abdication in regard to being the champions of 'accountability and transparency' in their roles as 'elected representatives'. Sadly, the evidence is compelling even if the Director of Local Government is prepared to look the other way for whatever reason.
I trust that you find this information both relevant and informative and I look forward to your response with considerable interest. Should you decide to run for election again I'll pay particular, and much closer attention, to what you have to say about accountability and transparency in governance.
Yours sincerely,
Ray Norman
https://willowweaverstasmania.blogspot.com.au/
WEBsite https://wickery7250.blogspot.com.au/
Ray Norman
<zingHOUSEunlimited>
The lifestyle design enterprise and research network
PH: 03-6334 2176
EMAIL 1: raynorman7250@bigpond.com
40 Delamere Crescent Trevallyn TAS. 7250
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
From: LAUNCESTON-PR <launcestonpr@bigpond.com>
Date: Wednesday, 27 June 2018 at 10:59 am
To: Ray Norman <raynorman7250@bigpond.com>
Subject: FW: THE EXAMINER AND SMOOTHED OVER VANDALISM
FYI & ATTENTION
From: LAUNCESTON-PR <launcestonpr@bigpond.com>
Date: Tuesday, 26 June 2018 at 9:08 pm
To: Alderman Emma Williams <Emma.Williams@launceston.tas.gov.au>
Subject: RE: THE EXAMINER AND SMOOTHED OVER VANDALISM
Dear Ald. Williams,
Since its seems that you are unfamiliar with the Minister's Good Governance Guide we'll start by providing you with a link – http://www.dpac.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/380427/Good_Governance_Guide_June_2018.pdf When you read it you will see that good governance is;
- Accountable
- Transparent
- Law-abiding
- Responsive
- Equitable
- Participatory and inclusive
- Effective and efficient
- Consensus oriented
Arguably these are qualities that Launceston City Council has not exhibited in this instance and in many others in the last three plus years. The council has not been well known for its transparency.
Accountability and transparency in this instance, if you actually go behind the scenes and check, you will find in the case of accountability that it was late coming and once the denials couldn't be sustained it has all been a deadly secret with a lot of smoothing over going on.
There was an unfortunate 'stuff-up' and the default action was to cover-up. That's a long way from being transparent. The consultation process that preceded the development was tokenistic. Had it not been there are enough "arts experts" around, even in Launceston, for there to have been a chance of alerting the council to the problem. It is obvious that there are no experts on council's staff nor among the alderpeople.
This development is about doing it to Launceston not with the Launceston community who are paying for it and without having much of a say in it.
Your churlish question is out of place and if you think about it you'll no doubt be able to see that there was a better way and there are still things to be done.
However, the idea held by so many residents that you as aldermen see yourselves as being out of reach of criticism, well it seems to be the truth. The Minister could not recognise any outcome here that would even roughly equate with his guide.
Yours sincerely
Treva Alen
For L'ton PR
PS if you are serious about being accountable in this case get back to us and we'll put you in touch with someone who actually knows the ins and outs here
On 26/6/18, 7:31 pm, "Alderman Emma Williams" <Emma.Williams@launceston.tas.gov.au> wrote:
Hi,
Thanks for your emails. Could you please outline the full process you would have prescribed?
Regards,
Emma.
Alderman Emma Williams I City of Launceston
T 6323 3000 I M 0417 076 371 I www.launceston.tas.gov.au<http://www.launceston.tas.gov.au/>
________________________________
From: LAUNCESTON-PR [launcestonpr@bigpond.com]
Sent: Friday, 22 June 2018 5:44 PM
To: LAUNCESTON-PR
Subject: THE EXAMINER AND SMOOTHED OVER VANDALISM
GO TO: https://tasratepayers.blogspot.com/2018/06/the-examiner-and-smoothed-over-vandalism.html
[https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjz1Rz68yosGAV08MLwBHS1p8P-vmoJwQdMToCZ-pzCanheUas3e7-mbKFtAbDR_dDi1IuaHK2zGIx9QeAKzY8MWAY-5KNq32Rn_Hkv5xVtR-k1MM2n1rKAu5-SetcG3raU0mrqX6bxIvc/s1600/AA-EXAMwalker.jpg]<https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjz1Rz68yosGAV08MLwBHS1p8P-vmoJwQdMToCZ-pzCanheUas3e7-mbKFtAbDR_dDi1IuaHK2zGIx9QeAKzY8MWAY-5KNq32Rn_Hkv5xVtR-k1MM2n1rKAu5-SetcG3raU0mrqX6bxIvc/s1600/AA-EXAMwalker.jpg>
Popular sculpture the Tasmanian tableau will be reassembled in Civic Square before redevelopment is completed in the square. ..... The tableau was created by prominent Tasmanian sculptor Stephen Walker and is an attraction for both children and adults. ..... RELATED STORY: Stephen Walker's lasting mark on Civic Square<https://www.examiner.com.au/story/5476664/tasmanian-artist-stephen-walkers-lasting-mark-in-civic-square/> ..... Walker's tableau was moved to make way for the redevelopment<https://www.examiner.com.au/story/5396814/a-section-of-the-civic-square-upgrades-is-now-open/> of Civic Square. ..... Its elements, a family of Tasmanian tigers, a wedge-tailed eagle and some cassowaries ...
[Black Currawong, Strepera fuliginosa! AKA canaries]...were separated as part of its removal. ..... However, City of Launceston general manager Michael Stretton said the art installation would be reinstated "in a prominent position" in the north-east part of the square. ..... "The sculpture will be located at the entrance to the square and, combined with the large new play space in the square, we think it will continue to be popular with children," Mr Stretton said. ..... "We're also taking the opportunity to restore and replace some elements of the sculpture that have been damaged over the years." ..... Stephen Walker was one of Tasmania's most prolific sculptors. ..... His artwork is dotted around the state and the country. ..... "The City of Launceston has had a collaborative and productive relationship with Mr Walker's estate, and we've been working with them on the final placement of the sculpture," Mr Stretton said. ..... Walker died in 2014.
EDITOR"S NOTE: If it's in THE EXAMINER you know that it is dead right and the absolute last word on the subject – and very often it is the truth too! This missive sets out to let everyone know what's going on but what it is not saying is quite a bit more than interesting.
The GM is attempting to smooth over a stuff-up in the planning process – albeit one that he inherited from his predecessor and/or the alderpeople collectively. Quite simply, it is clear that the current arrangement – this week's arrangement – of the sculptures is what was planned for in the redevelopment. Trouble is you cannot change an artist's work without consultation and approval. Once the artist's family found out about how the work was installed the council started 'working with them on the final placement of the sculpture"and here we are sweeping the dust under the carpet.
That'd all be OK unless Alderman Finlay<https://www.examiner.com.au/story/5442880/finlay-announces-plans-to-run-for-mayor-in-local-government-elections/> – mayoral candidate – hadn't surreptitiously confirmed that there are indeed costs involved in all this despite councils vehement denial. It seems that she holds the deluded belief that if something – almost anything it seems – is costing more than you originally imagined, and if you have to spend that money on something that you hadn't planned for, that something costs 'nothing' – well sort of.
Worryingly it seems that all the alderpeople bought that bit of silly spin. Ratepayers are smarter than that!
Now that the spin is out and it is being thoroughly debunked, the rumour mill around council is speculating about where their $20K/$30K/$40K for this or that went to at the end of the financial year. Just possibly from out of the proverbial 'hollow log' and to this cause given that there might be some cause for 'electoral embarrassment'.
The alderpeople who spruiked their business acumen should be hanging their heads in shame or in hiding somewhere. Instead of making good a stuff up, Ald. Finlay's savings might have been better spent on something like solar panels thus ultimately saving ratepayers money.
As Kev Carmody<http://www.kevcarmody.com.au/> says "from little things big things grow'" Here we can see how if you let little 'porkies' go they can grow and grow and grow! Anyway it seems that there is a hollow log in Civic Square with less in it – possibly nothing at all!
BRING ON THE ELECTION AND KEEP ON KEEPING THEM ACCOUNTABLE
[http://api.launceston.tas.gov.au/eCard/disclaimer/twitter.png]<https://twitter.com/LtonCityCouncil> [http://api.launceston.tas.gov.au/eCard/disclaimer/youtube.png] <http://www.youtube.com/user/LauncestonCtyCouncil> [http://api.launceston.tas.gov.au/eCard/disclaimer/www.png] <http://www.launceston.tas.gov.au> [http://api.launceston.tas.gov.au/eCard/disclaimer/LCC_YVYL.png] <http://yourvoiceyourlaunceston.com.au/>
Please consider the environment before printing this, or any other e-mail or document.
________________________________________
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER
Information in this transmission is intended only for the person(s) to whom it is addressed and may contain privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying or dissemination of the information is unauthorised and you should delete/destroy all copies and notify the sender. No liability is accepted for any unauthorised use of the information contained in this transmission.
This disclaimer has been automatically added.
No comments:
Post a Comment