COPIED HERE WITH PERMISSION
TO: Mayor, General Manager and Aldermen [City of Launceston – CoL]
As you are well aware the purpose of an Annual General Meeting (AGM) for ‘operations’ involving the general public (ratepayers in the case of Local Govt), and are held as required by law. Likewise, the CoL Organisational Values and The GM’s Community Engagement policy expounds the necessities of all of this and more still.
The CoL AGM is held to inform ratepayers of previous and future activities. It has been also been an opportunity for ratepayers to receive copies of the council's accounts as well as reviewing fiscal information for the past year. In short, an AGM is an opportunity for constituents to hold their governing body to account.
With the revision of the Local Govt. Act, and the proposition of AGMs being held at the discretion of a council, the question that was hanging in the air is, in practical terms, how would constituents hold their local government to account between elections?
Consistent with accountability, AGMs are an opportunity for constituents to receive reports on the council’s operation and for ‘council’ to field questions regarding the directions the operation has taken and will take in the future. Without this opportunity what assurances are there that constituents can formally hold aldermen to account?
Furthermore, as you are no doubt well aware, an AGM has been an important occasion where ratepayers may move motions both on and not on notice.
The LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1993 - SECT 72B set out the minimum set of statutory circumstances applying to an AGM. It is notable that the Act is a product of the 20th C and is consequently now outmoded and significantly compromised given the changes in current communication technologies. In terms of the review of the Act it is important that it continues to afford constituents with opportunities to ‘functionally’, rather than notionally, hold their representatives to account.
Arguably, the Act as it now stands, its requirements do not fit the circumstances of the 21st C and therefore it is consequently both redundant and compromised. Again, arguably the Act is in need of a root and branch reimagination and in ways that functionally deliver greater/adequate accountability.
IF it is intended that AGM meetings, when and they are held, continue to be as relevant, and deliver accountability, as was intended in 1993, how will this now be achieved in a 21st C context? If accountability is an imperative, the advertising and marketing of such meetings needs to be:
• Updated; and made relevant to the 21st C communication technologies; and
•Made to fit the currency of the present operating circumstances.
Neither is currently the case.
Currently, hardcopy newspapers are read less and less and information is conveyed more and more via digital media cum social media.
Importantly, the intent of the Local Govt Act can be enhanced, and it needs to be, in order that constituents (residents & ratepayers) can be more effectively engaged with the governance of their city – their precinct, their place.
Despite the importance of such meetings to Launceston’s ratepayers, arguably, the upcoming meeting is rather poorly advertised albeit in accord with “statutory requirements” and marketed even more poorly. Indeed, it has been argued that council is actively working to make CoL AGMs irrelevant and obsolete. Sadly, effectively this has already been achieved.
Against this background I submit that Launceston’s citizens, business people, residents and ratepayer need a real opportunity to have a public meeting called by council where issues of concern can be both aired and formally dealt with. Adequately marketed, appropriately resourced in a 21st C context, timed appropriately and sufficiently advertised such a public meeting with broad agenda opportunities is likely draw a significant attendance.
Does the city of Launceston hold its residents and ratepayers in contempt? Is the city of Launceston actually committed to the principle of accountability?
Increasingly Local Govt. elsewhere is employing the strategy of “Citizens Assemblies” – sometime called Citizen’s Juries or Panels – to enhance both their effectiveness and their accountability. Currently in Tasmania, and in Launceston in particular, it is increasingly evident that Local Governance has reached a point where such a mechanism could play an important role.
For quite a long time in Australia the newDEMOCRACY Foundation – www.newdemocracy.com.au – has been facilitating such assemblies and reportedly with considerable success in Victoria and South Australia in particular.
Therefore, I ask that council consider this opportunity and empanel such an assembly charged with assessing and reporting on the effectiveness of the CoL’s operation and its accountability as soon as is practical.
I look forward to Council’s early response in context with the upcoming City of Launceston AGM.
Regards,
Ray Norman
Trevallyn
No comments:
Post a Comment