LAUNCESTON AND FISCAL ACCOUNTABILITY

It is becoming increasingly evident that Launceston City Council is committed to maintaining the status quo, or at least in regard to growing the 'Council Empire'.

Unfortunately, the 'status quo' can be taken to mean several things and not all of them praise worthy. 

There are implications in regard to a recent media release to do with Council's upcoming budget. It’s being flagged that Council fees will rise and there should be no surprise in that as it's a scenario repeated annually. 

Apparently, the upcoming budget’s general baseline will see a 2% rise in fees. Supposedly this “will reduce the burden on ratepayers” and charge service users the cost of providing the service.  This is but a 'softener' for quite possibly increases elsewhere.

If this was actually a serious proposition the Council rate demands would be broken up into their constituent parts – Waste Management Fee, QVMAG Levy, York Park Levy, Recreation Facilities Levy, Infrastructure Maintenance Levy and so on. 

The argument against that more than likely would be that it is too complex to provide such a break down and maintain that kind of accountability. But this is 2016! 

In a 21st Century context you would have to ask why such accounting might be thought to be too complex given that large corporations currently maintain up-to-the-minute accounting across broad spectrum operations. 

UNPLANNED EXPENDITURE ALLOCATIONS 

Then there is unplanned expenditures that all too often pop into the equation and that, apparently, add to Council’s (ratepayer's!) debt burden and quite significantly. 

Take for example the $60,000 of projected expenditure allocated to receiving two Chinese delegations this year. 

Ald. Gibson is to be congratulated for raising the issue of ‘cost benefit’. Going by Examiner reporting, the value in receiving these delegations is all rather hazy – at least in the  minds of aldermen.

Indeed, are there any strategic objectives? Or are the outcomes being left to chance? How are these visits to be managed? To what end?

If Council is managing the visits how were the projected costs arrived at? If Council isn’t managing the hosting, then who is? 

In fact, what are these projected costs actually for? Furthermore, what is the strategic purpose in receiving these delegations? Indeed, what is the value in Council hosting these delegations? Where is it articulated to those called upon to pick up the tab?

There may well be benefits but what are they understood to be? When will those who cough up the cash be told about it?

The ratepayers will, it seems, be picking up the bills but for what benefit or what dividend? Apart from Ald. Gibson, why aren’t the aldermen asking these questions and passing their perceptions on to their constituency? Possibly this money would be equally well spent at the casino. Or is that the plan?

PRUDENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT 

Quite apart from the inbuilt irrationalities, and the potentially unsustainable City Heart Project, Quadrant Mall traders are clearly being exposed to unacceptable risks to do with the loss of business and the potential loss of livelihoods. 

These traders were not included in the City Heart Planning process in any meaningful way. When it came work to start the work they were advised that it was planned to take place over several months. 

There is much to be said about that process such as it is. There also much to be said about the planning processes such as they have been.

However, currently, the big questions seem to be to do with the implementation of the plan such as it is. 

For instance, apparently the tiles being used to pave the mall are being sourced in Western Australia. Why is this? Indeed, at what additional cost are ratepayers being required to cover as a consequence of this ‘planning decision’? Indeed, was this a planned decision? If it was, in accord with what expert advice under SECTION 65 of 'The Act' did it proceed?

So much for "Progress With Prudence"!

What's more, has there been any consideration given to the ways traders can be assisted to help meet the loss of business reported as being 40% to 60% in some cases? Is anyone on Council at risk of an "operational loss"?

Heaven forbid that Council and UTas actually get together to sweep away sensible environmental and infrastructural concerns in the cause of 'development' and the spirit of "she'll be right."

ACCOUNTABILITY 

In asking the questions posed here it can be anticipated that ‘Council’ will seek to avoid answering them. 

However, ratepayers’ funds are being employed and it seems they can expect a much lower level of accountability than if they were investors in a corporation with a similar operational budget to Launceston City Council.

Chances are a program such as FOUR CORNERS would pursue the recalcitrant 'operatives' and do some shaming at the very least but the toothless regional press is ever likely to leave such messiness "well alone".

In fact it increasingly apparent that the operational wing of Launceston City Council is self-assessing and driven by some need to maintain the status quo as a worst case scenario or grow the ‘empire’ at the ratepayers cost wherever, and whenever that is possible.

Then there is the spectre of an opaque "commercial-in-confidence" 'asset sale' for something in excess of the valuer's valuation – or something of the like. Is accountability a discretionary concept?