Its an idea worth exploring but stand back and listen to all the reasons as why it cannot be done .... well not in Tasmania.Living Cooperatively: Affordable Housing – Sustainable Development
What’s happening in Tasmania
Monday, May 30, 2011
Living Cooperatively: Affordable Housing
Its an idea worth exploring but stand back and listen to all the reasons as why it cannot be done .... well not in Tasmania.Living Cooperatively: Affordable Housing – Sustainable Development
What’s happening in Tasmania
PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: A good idea if you can get some
The Premier has non-performers in the public service in her sights. We congratulate her for this and ask that she include local government in her efficiency cum expenditure review. We are fearful that if she doesn’t her duds will finish up working for Councils around the State. Really, they all need to get a real job and go to Western Australia to dig up iron ore.
It is important that the pendulum swings back towards the value for money side of the equation. Too many timeservers are employed in public service and that is across the board. It is as bad in local government as it may be in the State Govt. public service. It might even be worse.
If we look at Launceston, ratepayers dealing with Council, according to a recent survey, have a better than 40% chance of encountering an uncooperative or inefficient or inept functionary somewhere along the way. This is disturbing.
Furthermore, if one was to take a long hard look at what council has achieved in the last financial year there is nothing worth throwing a bouquet at but there are many targets for brickbats. This must tell us something.
So the plea is out to Premier Giddings, please do not stop at the State Govt. public service and deliver up to ratepayers a way of disposing of non-performing staff in their councils as well. This last financial year some have cost ratepayers hundreds of thousands of dollars.
A way to start would be to have some truly independent performance reviews where there was a disinclination to be generous. But do not hold your breath or look for a good outcome, or better performances, anytime soon. There are too many with too much at stake to allow cost saving of this kind at Town Hall. Watch the budget for the evidence!
Sunday, May 29, 2011
WE TOLD YOU SO: Ratepayers see red ... again and again and again
Alison Andrews heading in the Examiner yesterday "Aquatic centre in a sea of red" was very cold comfort for Launceston's ratepayers ... click here to read more"A $30,000 review has been urgently commissioned to find ways to stop the Launceston Aquatic Centre from bleeding $1.2 million a year." Again $30K seems like a magic number ... wasn't that what it cost the then GM, Frank Dixon, for dancers to open the place?
Launceston City Council's newish GM, Robert Dobrzynski "wants their (the consultants') recommendations on his desk by early next month so that there is time to use their findings in the preparation of the council budget for next financial year." Word has it that he's already told them what they must tell him but there you go that's how bureaucracy works these days – expensive consultant advice at almost every turn.
Now ratepayers told Council – Aldermen & officers – back in August 2007 in a MEDIA RELEASE that this foolhardy venture was bound to cost ratepayers dearly. Trouble is it was FREE ADVICE and totally dismissible because it came from ratepayers ... click here to read the 2007 Media Release
Curiously, Mr Dobrzynski's allies, as he sees it on this issue, are most likely to be "the ratepayers" since there are Aldermen who would prefer to keep all this stuff behind closed doors – especially in an election year. He knows that if this happens he'll end up wearing all the odium of poor Aldermanic decision-making down the line. This is demonstrated by the trouble he is having getting a unanimous Aldermanic tick of approval for a public consultation meeting for the 2011-2012 budget.
You see quite a few of them believe in the 'Divine Right of Aldermen' and the abdication theory. That is the one that goes, ratepayers have voted us in so we do not need to consult them because in voting for us they passed all responsibility to us. Apparently, in this theory accountability is discretionary.
It appears that the aquatic centre was over budget by more than $416,000 for the last quarter alone, with fears that the annual loss will rise above $1.2 million. However, down at Town Hall the budget process is a lot to do with smoke and mirrors and the REAL LOSSES are likely to be much greater if all the project's costs are counted – and they are not likely to be. It seems "quality assurance" and "performance assessments" are sensitive terms.
It also seems that the Aldermen, like mushrooms, are in the dark here and fed copious quantities of male bovine excrement. There are good arguments to suggest that the FULL cost of the centre have been hidden away for some reason.
Back in 2007, when ratepayers predicted all this, Launceston's ratepayers were never told about the full costs of the project or that they will be subsidising and paying off this Regional facility forever at the rate of some $86 per ratepayer per annum. As rates rise there are fewer places to hide as ratepayer turn over more rocks looking accountability.
It was time then but isn't it also about time now that all of Launceston ratepayers were democratically and directly polled on this project – its an election year remember. Or, do we need a 1,000 signature petition to hold a plebiscite to vote on the future of the Aquatic Centre? Or, do we need to indulge in civic amnesia for the benefit of the Aldermen who championed this diabolical, and ego boosting, project in the face of contrary advice, reason and logic.
This is but one issue but let's see if Mr Dobrzynski gets his public consultation meeting on the budget, and if he does, let's see what it reveals. General Managers go and new ones come but many of the Aldermen who burdened the ratepayers with an aquatic centre they could ill afford are still there. Let's see them scurrying for cover in coming weeks as their budget strategies ( past & present) unfold and unravel.
In the end there is no comfort at all in being able to say "I told you so."
Launceston City Council's newish GM, Robert Dobrzynski "wants their (the consultants') recommendations on his desk by early next month so that there is time to use their findings in the preparation of the council budget for next financial year." Word has it that he's already told them what they must tell him but there you go that's how bureaucracy works these days – expensive consultant advice at almost every turn.
Now ratepayers told Council – Aldermen & officers – back in August 2007 in a MEDIA RELEASE that this foolhardy venture was bound to cost ratepayers dearly. Trouble is it was FREE ADVICE and totally dismissible because it came from ratepayers ... click here to read the 2007 Media Release
Curiously, Mr Dobrzynski's allies, as he sees it on this issue, are most likely to be "the ratepayers" since there are Aldermen who would prefer to keep all this stuff behind closed doors – especially in an election year. He knows that if this happens he'll end up wearing all the odium of poor Aldermanic decision-making down the line. This is demonstrated by the trouble he is having getting a unanimous Aldermanic tick of approval for a public consultation meeting for the 2011-2012 budget.
You see quite a few of them believe in the 'Divine Right of Aldermen' and the abdication theory. That is the one that goes, ratepayers have voted us in so we do not need to consult them because in voting for us they passed all responsibility to us. Apparently, in this theory accountability is discretionary.
It appears that the aquatic centre was over budget by more than $416,000 for the last quarter alone, with fears that the annual loss will rise above $1.2 million. However, down at Town Hall the budget process is a lot to do with smoke and mirrors and the REAL LOSSES are likely to be much greater if all the project's costs are counted – and they are not likely to be. It seems "quality assurance" and "performance assessments" are sensitive terms.
It also seems that the Aldermen, like mushrooms, are in the dark here and fed copious quantities of male bovine excrement. There are good arguments to suggest that the FULL cost of the centre have been hidden away for some reason.
Back in 2007, when ratepayers predicted all this, Launceston's ratepayers were never told about the full costs of the project or that they will be subsidising and paying off this Regional facility forever at the rate of some $86 per ratepayer per annum. As rates rise there are fewer places to hide as ratepayer turn over more rocks looking accountability.
It was time then but isn't it also about time now that all of Launceston ratepayers were democratically and directly polled on this project – its an election year remember. Or, do we need a 1,000 signature petition to hold a plebiscite to vote on the future of the Aquatic Centre? Or, do we need to indulge in civic amnesia for the benefit of the Aldermen who championed this diabolical, and ego boosting, project in the face of contrary advice, reason and logic.
This is but one issue but let's see if Mr Dobrzynski gets his public consultation meeting on the budget, and if he does, let's see what it reveals. General Managers go and new ones come but many of the Aldermen who burdened the ratepayers with an aquatic centre they could ill afford are still there. Let's see them scurrying for cover in coming weeks as their budget strategies ( past & present) unfold and unravel.
In the end there is no comfort at all in being able to say "I told you so."
Saturday, May 28, 2011
REIMAGINING WASTE AS A RESOURCE: Can we do it?
Click here to go to City to Soil and watch the videos
THINK OF GREEN WASTE AS A RESOURCE: Dare we do it?
CLICK ON AN IMAGE TO ENLARGE IT
WHAT IS HOLDING US BACK?
Monday, May 23, 2011
A CLAYTON’S PROMISE ON LCC RATES
Launceston’s ratepayers were somewhat encouraged last year when the city’s new GM promised a different future in regard to the setting of the city’s rates. For a moment there it looked like that the ‘new broom’ GM was set to make a difference.The promise was that:
• The GM would be presenting the 2011-2012 Budget in draft form to the public; and that
• He would be calling for submissions from ratepayers prior to presenting the budget to Council for the consideration of the 2011-12 Rate.
If that had happened, or is to happen, then ratepayers would welcome the opportunity to contribute to the discourse to do with rate setting in the city. Importantly, this would imply that all wisdom on the matter cannot not reside at Town Hall with the Council officers and Aldermen– a novel idea perhaps.
Sadly when the GM was first tested on his ‘promise’ he came up wanting and seemingly he flicked the issue to an underling. So it seems that it may be a ‘CLAYTON’S PROMISE’ – you know the one you have when you are not delivering on one. Interestingly the underlings are duck shoving the issue and as they say “heading to the hills at 100 mph.”
Henceforth in Launceston perhaps we should be regarding these promises as ‘DOBRZYNSKI PROMISES’ and as a Launcestoian cultural phenomenon – promises made by a GM but not intended to be kept for whatever reason. Indeed, it looks like that this one is not alone and that there are others a waiting in the wings to be brought to light.
However the issue here is, is it the GM who is failing to deliver or is it the Aldermen, or some of them, who are recalcitrant here? As this goes online the good Aldermen are apparently considering a report prepared by the GM. Will the good Aldermen’s support, or otherwise, be unanimous? Whatever, in an election year it will be revealing and likely to be a subject for discussion at the next public budget meeting if there is one.
All the while the city’s ratepayers face the prospect of hefty rate increases based on new valuations that the GM and his financial underlings seem to think are justifiable as a “Wealth Tax” – the bureaucratic understanding of rate collection in support of their salaries and superannuation.
Ratepayers are typically depressed at this time each year thinking about the rate increases they are about to receive and the loss of services they are likely to experience. There is so so much waste and so so much of ratepayers hard earned consigned to the loo. One day this must change and someone must be held to account.
Sadly when the GM was first tested on his ‘promise’ he came up wanting and seemingly he flicked the issue to an underling. So it seems that it may be a ‘CLAYTON’S PROMISE’ – you know the one you have when you are not delivering on one. Interestingly the underlings are duck shoving the issue and as they say “heading to the hills at 100 mph.”
Henceforth in Launceston perhaps we should be regarding these promises as ‘DOBRZYNSKI PROMISES’ and as a Launcestoian cultural phenomenon – promises made by a GM but not intended to be kept for whatever reason. Indeed, it looks like that this one is not alone and that there are others a waiting in the wings to be brought to light.
However the issue here is, is it the GM who is failing to deliver or is it the Aldermen, or some of them, who are recalcitrant here? As this goes online the good Aldermen are apparently considering a report prepared by the GM. Will the good Aldermen’s support, or otherwise, be unanimous? Whatever, in an election year it will be revealing and likely to be a subject for discussion at the next public budget meeting if there is one.
All the while the city’s ratepayers face the prospect of hefty rate increases based on new valuations that the GM and his financial underlings seem to think are justifiable as a “Wealth Tax” – the bureaucratic understanding of rate collection in support of their salaries and superannuation.
Ratepayers are typically depressed at this time each year thinking about the rate increases they are about to receive and the loss of services they are likely to experience. There is so so much waste and so so much of ratepayers hard earned consigned to the loo. One day this must change and someone must be held to account.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)