STORY LINK: http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/futuretense/citzens-juries-giving-power-to-the-people/5779168
Drawing issues like NEW DEMOCRACY initiatives to the attention of a Council one needs to fully expect that the idea will find its way into the BLACKhole that the ubiquitous Town Hall ‘executive’ maintains with care and dilegence.
Its a pity that accountability gets such a poor level of commitment but there we go, that’s the legacy we are destined to bear until someone sees the prospect of change and goes for it.
It’d be very interesting to see comments and responses to the prospect of change that challenged the comfortable status quo. It seems that ‘the governors’ just do not want to consider lifting their game, ever much when the comfortable defence of the status quo is at hand. But the status quo is just no longer a viable option.
However, if we look at Melbourne’s willingness to include rather than exclude its constituency there seems to be a light at the end of the tunnel. . That is if you think the links here have any veracity at all in contrast to the status quo and that anyone at all will take the time to look at the options and opportunities that are being explored.
Its just the case that there is no real reason to think that governance is beyond the reach of criticism and critique.
Yesterday’s Examiner article “Mayors prepare to share – http://www.examiner.com.au/story/2996803/mayors-prepare-to-share/” gives one that terrible sinking feeling that you get when you harbour any kind of hope at all against the odds. Well done LCC you’ve collectively disappointed yet again!
Launceston’s efforts in disenchanting it’s neighbours have born all the fruits of distain and distrust that could have been expected. And, quite reasonably so from the neighbours points of view given Launceston’s ill considered alienating empire building behaviours over time – all championed by its ‘executive wing’.
It’ll be Launceston’s citizenry and ratepayers who’ll pay ever so dearly – and it all be so needlessly. It’s not as if it was not ever in prospect. Launceston’s mayor’s openly declared position of extending Launceston’s boundaries was always flawed and fuelled by hubris. Filled as it was/is with misleading rhetoric and the self-serving pretentiousness of the empire builder, it was ever likely to offend.
When will accountability be given any substance and importance in Launceston’s governance?
When one offends it is usual to be punished. However, here it’s not the executive who’ll bear the punishment. Rather, they’ll continue to savour the spoils and largess of their office.
Getting serious matters of concern in regard to Council’s accountability on the agenda is near to impossible. By-and-large criticism and critique goes unacknowledged and/or uncontested. So one can see the city’s neighbours’ point of view well enough when they try to open a dialogue that is an exchange of views rather than be the recipients of Launcestonian self-serving wisdom.
People wish to be participants in their governance and they do not wish to be caught up in polarised in unproductive adversarial (lose-lose) contests.
The evidence in support of this is compelling. SEE http://participate.melbourne.vic.gov.au/projects/10yearplan/
As discovered in Melbourne, trusted outcomes are achieved when leadership allows constituents to participate in their governance. This was achieved via randomly selected citizens deliberating and handing down a determination based on the evidence before them. It works in our courts with juries and only those who do not respect the notion of justice would deny that it does – albeit not always flawlessly.
It may or may not be known that Melbourne City Council exposed itself to this kind of scrutiny with apparently positive outcomes within the Melbourne community and internationally – on the evidence. Some reference links are provided here for the enlightenment of those who not had the opportunity to become acqainted with Melbourne’s initiative. SEE http://www.newdemocracy.com.au/our-work/item/219-city-of-melbourne-people-s-panel
Albert Einstein reminded us that “In matters of truth and justice, there is no difference between large and small problems, for issues concerning the treatment of people are all the same.”
If you believe that I’m misguided in the views I’m putting to you please rebut them. If they have any relevance please acknowledge that, even if qualified, and let’s get on with delivering better governance not just in Launceston but also our region and beyond. Let’s lead by way of example. That’s what leadership is all about
3 comments:
Governance! A concern that was thrown about during 2014 election. Concern that new candidates would not understand governance. Governance in Launceston needs new thinkers. It is held by peoples egos and institutionalied thinking. A prime example also the Launceston General Hospital. Not to mention the bullying that goes on there to.
You are right on the money Krista! The new candidates, no new aldermen, seem to have come to understand their role rather well. Watching from the sidelines it easy to see that their capacity for followship looks like it is developing well. Whenever the GM tells them to jump they ask how high and follow his direction impeccably. Apparently he regards what you would regard as new thinkers as misguided and deluded enthusiasts. You mention the B word but it has been removed from the council’s vocab and replaced by toughness, hardheaded, strong action, strict, all soft alternatives for the B word. That is the kind of new thinking that is now the basis of the followship being demanded for our alderpeople. It is a pity you didn’t make to the table ….
Krista, what is interesting for me here is that I've put this idea of CITIZENS JURIES to a few people in local government. On was very interesting in that it drew the comment "you just cannot run local government on new ideas". Other comments have been interesting in different ways. Mostly it can be put down to unwelcomed accountability.
But what's the problem with accountability? CITIZENS JURIES do not remove a council's ability to make a big decision. I may however add a level of credibility to the decision making via the inclusiveness that comes with it. It would be good to hear the argument AGAINST participatory government.
Melbourne City Council has embraced the concept and the sum still comes up each day in Melbourne just like it does in Tasmania.
Post a Comment