Council row over decisions ... click here to read the story
ALISON ANDREWS 21 Oct, 2011 01:00 AM
Well it appears that, as reported in the Examiner today, "A STOUSH has developed between the Launceston City Council's general manager and the man who could be the next deputy mayor over who should make council decisions."
The Examiner reports that the General Manager, Mr Dobrzynski slammed Alderman Ball's questioning saying "The legislative authority of the general manager is far in excess of the authority of the elected council (reference section 62 and 63 of the Local Government Act 1992),"
WELL, the LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1993 - SECT 62, 63 & 64 says
62. Functions and powers of general manager
(1) The general manager has the following functions:
- (a) to implement the policies, plans and programs of the council;
- (b) to implement the decisions of the council;
- (c) to be responsible for the day-to-day operations and affairs of the council;
- (d) to provide advice and reports to the council on the exercise and performance of its powers and functions and any other matter requested by the council;
- (e) to assist the council in the preparation of the strategic plan, annual plan, annual report and assessment of the council's performance against the plans;
- (f) to coordinate proposals for the development of objectives, policies and programs for the consideration of the council;
- (g) to liaise with the mayor on the affairs of the council and the performance of its functions;
- (h) to manage the resources and assets of the council;
- (i) to perform any other function the council decides.
63. Employees
(1) The general manager of a council may –
- (a) appoint persons as employees of the council; and
- (b) allocate duties to employees; and
- (c) control and direct employees; and
- (d) suspend or dismiss employees.
64. Delegation by general manager
The general manager, in writing, may delegate to an employee of the council –
- (a) any functions or powers under this or any other Act, other than this power of delegation; and
- (b) any functions or powers delegated by the council which the council authorized the general manager to delegate.
Now one might be forgiven for thinking that Council, the elected 12, make the policy decisions and clearly, very clearly, it the GM's role to deliver on them.
NOW the real questions here are:
NOW the real questions here are:
- Why did the Mayor delegate the authority/task to the GM?
- Why didn't the Mayor consult his Aldermen if he didn't?
- Did the Mayor consult his Aldermen on this matter?
- What delegated authorities does the GM have?
- When were these authorities delegated to him and under what circumstances?
- Are these delegated authorities recorded anywhere?
- If not why not?
The GM is accountable to Council but it seems that in this instance at least the boundaries of authority may have become blurred, no, very blurred.
Is it the case in this instance that it is the only instance where this kind of blurring is going on?
The GM in NOT elected and thus has no policy making role but he may well advise Aldermen on their policy making ... and yes, its a part of his job.
Is it the case in this instance that it is the only instance where this kind of blurring is going on?
The GM in NOT elected and thus has no policy making role but he may well advise Aldermen on their policy making ... and yes, its a part of his job.
4 comments:
I made the comment recently that this is beating up an issue at election time and I stand by that; lets look at this issue closely[ not from what one reads in the Examiner]. Council passed a motion several months ago that council be a part of ANY group that looks at transport issues, traffic movements around the city that arise if a pulp mill gets built etc. A logical sensible motion I supported. Since then as we got into election mode the minute the GM acted on that motion and engaged in conversations with Gunns as the council motion instructed him too, an alderman who was elected as a GREENS party alderman makes an issue about the GM actually doing what the motion asked him to do. The Examiners coverage of it today too is interesting- one of the last days votes can be posted. It gave extensive coverage to this NOM much more so that would normally happen of a Friday before a Monday council mtg- if you doubt my view go back through previous Friday editions and see what you find. A coincidence maybe??.Its typical Green party politics- bring the pulp mill out as an issue to scare voters when in reality council can't stop the pulp mill as it is out of our power to do so.
Ald Soward, me thinks that you protest too loudly and you seem to be missing the point. Perhaps neither you NOR Ald Ball are tuned in to the point BUT Ald Ball seems closer to the mark maybe than your good self.
My reading is that Ald. Ball is for whatever reason asserting that the Aldermen, the elected representatives need to be determining policy and the GM needs to be seen as implementing it rather than determining it. Are you with me so far Ald. Soward?
If there is ANY confusion here there shouldn’t be.
The thing that needs to be cleared up with the GM is what his ACTUAL role is. He also needs to be informed that it’s NOT his role to represent ratepayers, it’s the Mayor’s and the Aldermen’s. Its probably unwise of the GM to say that he had
legislative authority … far in excess of the authority of the elected council but there you are its done now and he seems to have said it.
It’s not my reading of the Act! But I’m simply a hapless ratepayer. The sooner that this sort of tosh is removed from the scene the happier all ratepayers are likely to be. They would certainly feel a lot better about how they were being represented.
Time for a serious reality check me thinks.
Appreciate your points Rodger- but as I said the GM was actually implementing a motion of council- that Ald Ball actually moved several months earlier. The GM was doing what the Aldermen had asked around the transport issues in that earlier motion.
OK Ald. Soward, duck and weave if you must but the main point here, the one you are ducking, is that the GM has apparently said "The legislative authority of the general manager is far in excess of the authority of the elected council (reference section 62 and 63 of the Local Government Act 1992),"
Is that your reading of the ACT?! If it is, are you standing back from your responsibility to REPRESENT the ratepayers?
The minutiae and the ins and outs of Ald. Ball's past motions etc. etc. are not the issue here. The issue is that the GM seems to be asserting that "The legislative authority of the general manager is far in excess of the authority of the elected council (reference section 62 and 63 of the Local Government Act 1992)," and that the assertion just does not seem to stack up.
Have I missed something here? If so, please put me in the picture and while you are about it clear it all up for all Launceston's ratepayers and maybe for the GM as well.
Post a Comment