Councillor Soward seems to have hit upon the idea that there is a chance that CITY PROM is a useless burden upon the city's retailers. Well if the retailers have been saying it for a couple of decades there just might be something in it. So, the punters are quite probably well and truely 'Browned Off' by now.
Why wait until now to do something? Why spend $20 to $25K to feel good about shutting City Prom down ?Why go hunting for reason's behind a smoke screen to find the operation to be useless in na 21st Century context?
There is quite a longish list of reasons why the Council's management might want to use a consultant here. It is the least innocuous way to signal that something is"in hand"without having to explain a lot. Also, there would be no need to do a lot. All in all, a very good bureau friendly strategy.
Consultants are very good in a bureaucratic kind of way. They'll tell you what you what you want to know just so long as you tell them what that is.
However, if Cr, Soward were to amend his motion he could be a real 'civic leader' – a hero even. If he, or any other Councillor, were to champion say 'Citizen's Juries' and if they were to do so they could broaden the brief a little. If they were to do that 'the jury' could take a look at the 'council's budget', or an aspect of it, It might not involve much more than one where you would otherwise call for 'expressions of interest' for before setting up a tender process.
However, a Citizens' Jury found itself under consideration that would be a bit of a brak through. A Citizen's jury is a simple mechanism of 'participatory community consultation' that draws on the symbolism, and some of the practices, of a 'legal trial by jury'.
Typically, there is generally three components to the 'jury process'. Firstly, the "jury" is made up of ordinary local people who are usually selected "at random" from the local population. Usually, the selection process is open to outside scrutiny.
The jurors cross examine expert "witnesses" — people they have called to provide different perspectives on the topic — and collectively produce a summary of their conclusions, typically in a short report. Like with consultants there is no obligation follow a jury's recommendation's but given it's 'collective expertise and research', typically, their advice is harder to ignore than a consultant's.
Typically, the whole process is supervised by an independent oversight or advisory panel composed of a range of people with relevant knowledge and a possible interest in the outcome. They take no direct part in facilitating the citizens' jury. Members of this group subsequently decide whether to respond to, or act on, elements of this report. Most importantly, the process is open and transparent.
The UK's Local Govt. Assn. is a advocate for citizen's juries/assemblies. They report that The strategy requires sufficient time and investment. "For example, Ontario in Canada ran an assembly involving around 40 people over a period of 3 months for $75,000 (£43,000). However they do enable citizens to be brought into the decision making process in an engaging way, which reflects the strengths, needs and aspirations of the local population."
In Australia, we have the newDEMOCRACY Foundation [LINK2] which is first and foremost a research organisation. Its principal interest is to ensure that citizens trust government, very often local government, decision making.
Citizens’ Juries are the complete opposite to an opinion poll. Instead of a four-minute telephone call, they are a 40-hour in-person, deliberative process. As the name suggests, in essence, a Citizens’ Jury is a group of randomly selected members of a community convened to consider a given topic and provide a response or recommendation to the governing body. In Australia and around the world, these juries have increasing become recognised for their capacity to deliver outcomes that are trusted by the broader community.
Council has budgeted something like $80K per week 2019/2020 for 'Marketing and Development' plus there is $677K for accessing 'Expert Advice'. So, the Councillors have set aside the m oney, more than enough it seems, to lead the way and demonstrate a new way towards demonstrating 'accountability and transparency'.
So, let's not be having any that 'we lack the resources' bovine waste. Cr. Soward, and a seconder, could be taking the city towards a new horizon instead repeating bureaucratic processes, that have on the record in the city, just failed to deliver. The mechanism and opportunity is right here in Australia, and ready to be engaged with, so what might be holding us back?
........................................................Why wait until now to do something? Why spend $20 to $25K to feel good about shutting City Prom down ?Why go hunting for reason's behind a smoke screen to find the operation to be useless in na 21st Century context?
There is quite a longish list of reasons why the Council's management might want to use a consultant here. It is the least innocuous way to signal that something is"in hand"without having to explain a lot. Also, there would be no need to do a lot. All in all, a very good bureau friendly strategy.
Consultants are very good in a bureaucratic kind of way. They'll tell you what you what you want to know just so long as you tell them what that is.
However, if Cr, Soward were to amend his motion he could be a real 'civic leader' – a hero even. If he, or any other Councillor, were to champion say 'Citizen's Juries' and if they were to do so they could broaden the brief a little. If they were to do that 'the jury' could take a look at the 'council's budget', or an aspect of it, It might not involve much more than one where you would otherwise call for 'expressions of interest' for before setting up a tender process.
However, a Citizens' Jury found itself under consideration that would be a bit of a brak through. A Citizen's jury is a simple mechanism of 'participatory community consultation' that draws on the symbolism, and some of the practices, of a 'legal trial by jury'.
Typically, there is generally three components to the 'jury process'. Firstly, the "jury" is made up of ordinary local people who are usually selected "at random" from the local population. Usually, the selection process is open to outside scrutiny.
The jurors cross examine expert "witnesses" — people they have called to provide different perspectives on the topic — and collectively produce a summary of their conclusions, typically in a short report. Like with consultants there is no obligation follow a jury's recommendation's but given it's 'collective expertise and research', typically, their advice is harder to ignore than a consultant's.
Typically, the whole process is supervised by an independent oversight or advisory panel composed of a range of people with relevant knowledge and a possible interest in the outcome. They take no direct part in facilitating the citizens' jury. Members of this group subsequently decide whether to respond to, or act on, elements of this report. Most importantly, the process is open and transparent.
The UK's Local Govt. Assn. is a advocate for citizen's juries/assemblies. They report that The strategy requires sufficient time and investment. "For example, Ontario in Canada ran an assembly involving around 40 people over a period of 3 months for $75,000 (£43,000). However they do enable citizens to be brought into the decision making process in an engaging way, which reflects the strengths, needs and aspirations of the local population."
In Australia, we have the newDEMOCRACY Foundation [LINK2] which is first and foremost a research organisation. Its principal interest is to ensure that citizens trust government, very often local government, decision making.
Citizens’ Juries are the complete opposite to an opinion poll. Instead of a four-minute telephone call, they are a 40-hour in-person, deliberative process. As the name suggests, in essence, a Citizens’ Jury is a group of randomly selected members of a community convened to consider a given topic and provide a response or recommendation to the governing body. In Australia and around the world, these juries have increasing become recognised for their capacity to deliver outcomes that are trusted by the broader community.
Council has budgeted something like $80K per week 2019/2020 for 'Marketing and Development' plus there is $677K for accessing 'Expert Advice'. So, the Councillors have set aside the m oney, more than enough it seems, to lead the way and demonstrate a new way towards demonstrating 'accountability and transparency'.
So, let's not be having any that 'we lack the resources' bovine waste. Cr. Soward, and a seconder, could be taking the city towards a new horizon instead repeating bureaucratic processes, that have on the record in the city, just failed to deliver. The mechanism and opportunity is right here in Australia, and ready to be engaged with, so what might be holding us back?
Cityprom review proposed by Councillor Rob Soward .... Tarlia Jordan THE EXAMINER ... CLICK HERE TO GO TO SOURCE
A review of Cityprom could happen in the next six months, after a notice of motion was put forward to the City of Launceston council. ...................... Councillor Rob Soward has put the motion forward asking the general manager to engage with stakeholders, including Cityprom, to review the body and assess whether the needs of the Central Business District are being effectively addressed. ...................... The motion also asks the council to engage with a suitably qualified independent consultant to complete the review, and that it happens within the next six months. ...................... Cr Soward said he believes that it is the council's responsibility to ensure Cityprom is meeting the needs of the CBD. ...................... "According to Cityprom, its purpose is to ensure central Launceston is a vibrant hub for people to live, work, learn, invest, engage, enjoy and experience, through developing and implementing strategies that encourage creativity, entrepreneurship, innovation and sustainable economic growth, establishing Launceston as a great regional city," Cr Soward said. ...................... "Given the dramatic changes, which we have, and continue to experience throughout the Launceston CBD, it is difficult for any such organisations to stay contemporary and relevant." ...................... Cr Soward said it was vital that such organisations engage in periodic review to ensure the best interest for the CBD were being addressed, and said an independent review is what is needed. He said it is not best practise for any organisation to review themselves. ...................... Businesses in the CBD pay a levee, which is collected by the council, to be part of Cityprom. The levee is worth more than half a million dollars. ...................... General manager Michael Stretton said Cr Soward's motion is clear and the justifications all make sense. The proposed review would cost between $20,000 to $25,000 and budget amendments would have to be made if the council vote to approve the motion. The meeting will be held on Thursday at 1pm at the Town Hall.
A review of Cityprom could happen in the next six months, after a notice of motion was put forward to the City of Launceston council. ...................... Councillor Rob Soward has put the motion forward asking the general manager to engage with stakeholders, including Cityprom, to review the body and assess whether the needs of the Central Business District are being effectively addressed. ...................... The motion also asks the council to engage with a suitably qualified independent consultant to complete the review, and that it happens within the next six months. ...................... Cr Soward said he believes that it is the council's responsibility to ensure Cityprom is meeting the needs of the CBD. ...................... "According to Cityprom, its purpose is to ensure central Launceston is a vibrant hub for people to live, work, learn, invest, engage, enjoy and experience, through developing and implementing strategies that encourage creativity, entrepreneurship, innovation and sustainable economic growth, establishing Launceston as a great regional city," Cr Soward said. ...................... "Given the dramatic changes, which we have, and continue to experience throughout the Launceston CBD, it is difficult for any such organisations to stay contemporary and relevant." ...................... Cr Soward said it was vital that such organisations engage in periodic review to ensure the best interest for the CBD were being addressed, and said an independent review is what is needed. He said it is not best practise for any organisation to review themselves. ...................... Businesses in the CBD pay a levee, which is collected by the council, to be part of Cityprom. The levee is worth more than half a million dollars. ...................... General manager Michael Stretton said Cr Soward's motion is clear and the justifications all make sense. The proposed review would cost between $20,000 to $25,000 and budget amendments would have to be made if the council vote to approve the motion. The meeting will be held on Thursday at 1pm at the Town Hall.
No comments:
Post a Comment