Monday, April 4, 2016

IS LAUNCESTON ACTUALLY A VIABLE PROPOSITIUON?



Launceston’s council, its aldermen and management, apparently regard ‘the constituency’ with a degree of disdain. The post Easter Council meeting was so poorly attended that a quorum was perpetually in jeopardy. As the Property Council said, “this is not a good look”! 

If an alderman was to be ‘caught short’ during deliberations, well the meeting had to stop.  In fact that did happen! And, it happened at Council’s AGM in December 2015 too, and that meeting was ’out of order’, and unnoticed, for about 12 minutes. That wasn’t a ‘good look’ either. 

All the time these aldermen were supposedly considering matters of extreme importance to constituents with matters of interest on the agenda. 

However, it seems that council cum constituency matters are of peripheral importance compared to almost anything else. 

On the evidence, actually mounting evidence, council allowances are so very poor that they just do not justify aldermen actually spending time, well not very much time, considering policy matters on constituents’ behalf. Apparently, it all can be left to management despite management not actually being accountable to the constituency. 

It seems that the ‘aldermanic allowances’ – $34K + expenses – are just not enough to distract aldermen away from their ‘other legitimate interests’. If it’s not possible to get their attention at a scheduled council meeting, just how might a constituent get their attention, and representation, at other times. 

Curiously at this post-Easter meeting there was a development proposal that got to council, and apparently on the advice of  ‘the officers’, and it failed on the depleted aldermanic numbers. [CLICK HERE to read the proponents perspective]

Might the outcome have been different if there had been full attendance? Then a whole range of other questions come to mind, mainly in the area of the quality of decision making at Town Hall. An early one being, just how did this proposal get this far without some kind of aldermanic engagement? 

SECT 8 of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1993 – [LINK] –  tells us that the council’s purpose is to:
  • to provide for the health, safety and welfare of the community; 
  • to represent and promote the interests of the community; 
  •  to provide for the peace, order and good government of the municipal area. 
followed by a full spectrum civic duties and responsibilities. The words “represent and promote the interests of the community” are clearly providing this council, and its constituency, with serious challenges.

Some questions we might ask are:
  • Just how often do aldermen meet with constituents in order to understand the issues they are grappling with? In fact, just how accessible are aldermen? 
  • Where do aldermen initiate the policy position papers etc. that get to constituents for feedback? 
  • Where are the aldermen working with the broad cross section of the community in the cause of encouraging and facilitating enterprise in the community?
  •  When and where is council management working in concert with constituents’ representatives to ensure the city’s ongoing prosperity? 
  • In fact, are Launcestonians actually getting appropriate bangs for their bucks? 
 With attendance at meetings discretionary, and with accountability discretionary too it seems, why might any serious investor choose this city to invest in? .

If you’re a ‘big time operator’ council will probably be doing headstands and backflips to get your attention. However, if you’re a CBD trader, risk taking entrepreneur or an investor looking for an opportunity to grow a 21st Century idea, or even a business person trying to just stay in business in the 21st Century, in the end, and currently, you’d be well advised, it seems, to look elsewhere – maybe even doing business almost anywhere else that springs to mind. 

However, there is another way to look at 'providing for the health, safety and wellbeing of the community'. It could be considered to be the result of positive action by the Council. In fact, Council could use its powers and ratepayers' money to help the community to achieve better states of living and a sustainable economy. 

So when a new business start-up tries to get ahead and applies to Council for some permission, Council staff together with the aldermen could provide active assistance ... had they tried this approach ... had they talked to their contacts ... had they discovered that a proponent could use some assistance in a particular area ... and so on, outcomes might well be a lot different. 

Taking this kind of action would connect the community and Council more closely and increase the respect in which Council is held. It would also increase the electability of aldermen. .

It seems a pity that all too often Council is in the business of saying "no" to new ideas and presenting legalistic arguments to support their negative approach. Sadly, this presents the unfortunate picture of naysayers - gatekeepers who won't help until the applicants happen on the right approach to suit Council. 

Think of the difference between the two approaches. Which provides the best value for the rate demand? Which would lead to the most positive outcomes for a city like Launceston in the 21st Century?
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)