Smoke & Mirrors at Launceston Acquatic Again

CLICK HERE TO GO TO SOURCE

Pictured here: Alison Baker, of Anytime Fitness, Max Pearce, of Pycsam Health & Fitness, Michelle Manz, of My Gym, Eve Bolzonello, of Curves, Brian Finch, of KFM Fitness Studio, and Rod Ascui, of Health and Fitness World Launceston. Picture: PAUL SCAMBLER The Examiner

"GYM owners say the City of Launceston has lost financial control over the aquatic centre and have re-lodged their submission to the Tasmanian Economic Regulator to take action over unfair practices. 

A group of 14 gym owners says the council should not continue to throw ratepayers' money at the centre through the LAfit gym, while its deficit has almost doubled in just over one year - rising from $1.6 million to $2.96 million and when three gyms have closed down. 

Council general manager Robert Dobrzynski refuted the figures, saying the overall deficit had actually declined from $1.6 million to $1.3 million.... Click here to read more"

As before, the smoke and mirrors are on show and in evidence yet again in and around Launceston Aquatic, and its very concerning. On such things TAS RATEPAYERS raised its concerns not so long ago ... CLICK HERE.

A series of questions arise in regard to the City of Launceston's accountability and its so-called non-core operations. Given that Launceston's Aldermen are funded to represent ratepayers, with this as a background, can Aldermen address the questions below?

• What are the city's Aldermen doing to ensure that the city's management is operating within not only the statutory requirements of the Tasmanian government's laws and regulations but also the spirit of these laws and regulations for the benefit of ratepayers?

• To what end does the City of Launceston Council's management continues to produce ambiguous and confusing financial reports that appear to be self serving?

• Why do Aldermen apparently believe that "operation matters" are beyond their scrutiny, and their policy initiatives, even when ratepayers, on the evidence, are being seriously disadvantaged?

• Why is it that the City of Launceston's so called "Audit Committee" allows confusing ambiguous fiscal reporting to persist and moreover for ratepayers' access to such reporting to be constrained?

• Can the Aldermen satisfy themselves, and consequentially Launceston ratepayers, that the city's non core operations are functioning in a cost effective way? And if not why not?

While such questions go unanswered the City of Launceston's Aldermen appear to less and less accountable as time passes and more so as they appear to be so reluctant to act.