 |
| CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO ENLARGE |
For some, the prospect of Launceston Council’s behaviours being referred to the Integrity Commission come way too late.
It is hard to get the commission’s attention it seems but at last it looks like that the threat of The Commission arriving on the doorstep just might alter administrative and aldermanic behaviours somewhat.
There are some, including the odd Alderman, who find that Council minutes have been unsatisfactory for years.
The minutes are typically abbreviated, often to irrelevance, and one is left asking why could that be?
It has been the case for quite a long time down at Town Hall and if one queries the record keeping you tend to get the sort “technical” sidestep the General Manager offered at Monday’s meeting.
Interestingly the Mayor seems to agree that this sort of thing has been going on for a long time when he says the General Manager "was only doing what he had done previously."
If as he says "Mr Dobrzynsky has a history of being consistent in such matters, what is there to made of that?
Of course he had to support Ald. Finlay in her efforts to ensure procedural propriety but where was he looking on previous occasions? The other way perhaps? If so why so?
It is legend that the Town Hall bureaucracy has a tendency to be the tail that wags the dog but hapless ratepayer generally need to take the rough with the smooth. However now there is the prospect of the Integrity Commission to hold Council to account.
If as the Mayor seems to be saying here, if he is quoted in context, the General Manager has a history of consistency in such things. What questions does that leave hanging?
Rather, the question might be, who is holding who in contempt?
There are some, including the odd Alderman, who find that Council minutes have been unsatisfactory for years.
The minutes are typically abbreviated, often to irrelevance, and one is left asking why could that be?
It has been the case for quite a long time down at Town Hall and if one queries the record keeping you tend to get the sort “technical” sidestep the General Manager offered at Monday’s meeting.
Interestingly the Mayor seems to agree that this sort of thing has been going on for a long time when he says the General Manager "was only doing what he had done previously."
If as he says "Mr Dobrzynsky has a history of being consistent in such matters, what is there to made of that?
Of course he had to support Ald. Finlay in her efforts to ensure procedural propriety but where was he looking on previous occasions? The other way perhaps? If so why so?
It is legend that the Town Hall bureaucracy has a tendency to be the tail that wags the dog but hapless ratepayer generally need to take the rough with the smooth. However now there is the prospect of the Integrity Commission to hold Council to account.
If as the Mayor seems to be saying here, if he is quoted in context, the General Manager has a history of consistency in such things. What questions does that leave hanging?
Rather, the question might be, who is holding who in contempt?
No comments:
Post a Comment