BLOG EDITORS' NOTES: There is increasing evidence that Launceston's Aldermen are being treated with disregard and contempt by management. This year's budget process is clearly one whee the 'officers' have set the income levels they want and have immunised themselves against close scrutiny.
The proposed budget is as ex-Alderman Ian Routley has said is an "officers budget", its nothing more, nor anything less.
In effect the officers are asking the Aldermen for a SLUSH FUND to maintain the present level of funding PLUS 2.5% when the CPI is less than 1%. AND these people imagine themselves as PUBLIC SERVANTS. Someday this unaccountability must STOP!
The call for an administrator to be appointed for Launceston City Council has increasing relevance as each day passes based on the evidence before ratepayers looking for accountability!
 |
| CLICK HERE TO GO TO SOURCE |
THE president of the Tasmanian Ratepayers Association has called into question the Launceston City Council's management abilities after the organisation revealed it may increase its burial prices by 90 per cent over four years.
The council's 2015-16 draft budget papers include a proposal to increase the Carr Villa and Lilydale Cemetery plot rates by 15 per cent in 2014-15 and 25 per cent in 2015-16.
It was reported Saturday that people within the sector confirmed the rates were proposed to rise by 25 per cent a year for the next three years.
Tasmanian Ratepayers Association president Lionel Morrell said it was apparent the council had a budgeting issue.
"Launceston is the largest and wealthiest municipality in Tasmania and it cannot balance its books," he said.
"It's a question of their ability to manage the place, it's a question of why they're not increasing cremation prices at the same rate as burials and it's criticising their maintenance standards - there hasn't been enough care taken in maintaining and developing the cemetery for some time."
Launceston City Council general manager Robert Dobrzynski said the council was determined to ensure Carr Villa's financial sustainability.
He said burials carried costs not associated with cremations, including ongoing maintenance. "The facility is currently running at a loss of $350,000 which is being subsidised by Launceston ratepayers in the rates they pay, despite the facility serving the entire region," he said.
"The City of Launceston commissioned an independent benchmarking study of cemeteries across Tasmania and around Australia which found our fee structure was well below other cemeteries."
Submissions to the draft budget papers will be discussed at a committee meeting on Monday
– END –
3 comments:
In the fiscal management stakes you could not allow yourself the luxury of allowing yourself to trust any one of this mob with the lunch money and to actually go out and buy the f''keh lunch. One lot sidelines the other lot AND the other lot says " oh dear this is too complicated for us" and then they allow themselves to be hoodwinked and to comply with their excesses.
Why do we pay our rates to this mob? Well its simple, otherwise they will advertise your property in The Examiner and sell it too the lowest bidder of indeterminate identity. That how you get to be the most expensive council in Tasmania.
Has Mr Dobrzynsi only just discovered the losses made by the crematorium? Did he not realise there were maintenance expenses in his last 4 years at Council? What exactly are Mr Dobrzynski's qualifications for the role of GM? Or is he 'ere becoz' he's 'ere?
As the Tasmanian Council that spends the most public money, Council is a clear target for corruption, covert payments and deals, and various unethical and immoral interests.
To counter such possibilities, and to deliver public confidence in Council's ability and probity, we might expect them to employ rigorous (best) practices and procedures in their everyday dealings.
Sadly none of this is the case. Instead we see 'slush fund' style budgeting with vague line items, practices that are conducive to corruption (e.g. disposing of valuable assets), numerous appearances of 'cover ups' and secret decision making, Aldermen who defer to the General Manager in just about everything and an almost total lack of accountability and open-ness.
We know nothing of the skills and qualifications of our highly paid General Manager, information that could be public knowledge but that is covered up or hidden in both public documents and Aldermanic discussions.
Perhaps the $100 million public dollars are being well spent, but there is no evidence of that.
Surely such a massive amount of money in the hands of amateurs like our Aldermen, requires more rigorous protection and reporting than the current 'trust us, we're the Council' approach currently in use?
Post a Comment