COUNCILS ARE COSTING US WAY WAY TOO MUCH

At Kingborough Council's AGM last Saturday ratepayers noted the GM earned more than the Premier: "As distasteful as this issue is to air in public, ratepayers have a right to expect that if the GM is rewarded so handsomely, then we need value for money." The Mercury looked Statewide and did some comparisons – AND SOME VERY GOOD WORK.

There is absolutely no justification for 29 Council ripping off ratepayers and paying both Councillors/Aldermen way over the odds for doing way too little. 

Arguably the $6.5Mil spent on General Managers is money misspent and the $2Bil/whatever spent on 'Local Govt' could be spent much more productively. The news the some GM's are demanding 'more money' is the stuff of fantasy on their part. 

Where are they getting this nonsense about their value?

Likewise, for the most part Councillors are not delivering and they see themselves as being on some kind of sinecure that affords them those 'little extras' in life. Ask most to take a call, answer an email, represent you, do something, as often as not you will be dreaming – sadly.

With a population hovering around 500K what is required is something like a ‘LOCAL GOVERNANCE COMMISSION’ headed up by a Board of Commissioners: 

• All appointed and salaried; and
• Charged with determining relevant policies and strategies. 

It would need an administration delivering local services relative to place. There may be a roll for local representational advocacy groups but ‘governance’ can be much better delivered by a single commission underpinned by appropriate accountability mechanisms – such as citizen's assemblies. 

Currently many of the States Councils are dysfunctional and expensive that have become unaccountable bureaucratic fiefdoms essentially.

The claim that General Managers “earn” their salaries, superannuation and packages is the stuff of myths.

It is time for ZERO WASTE in a multi-dimensional sense  – in administration and at the 'resource recovery centres'.

It’s time to change. Actually it is way past that time.

THANKS TO THE MERCURY FOR THEIR GOOD WORK

COUNCIL RESPONDS TO TREE QUESTIONS

QUESTIONS and RESPONSES:

The following questions, submitted in writing to Council on 4 December 2019 by Mr Ray Norman, have been answered by Mr Shane Eberhardt (Director Infrastructure Services).

Questions:
Against the background of information currently circulating on social media and the personal representations made to the ‘Concerned Citizens Network’ relative to the reported removal of mature trees at Churchill Park a number of questions arise. In particular the questions are relative to Council’s reported declaration of a Climate Change Emergency.

1. Does Council’s determination of a Climate Emergency have any currency at all within Council operations or any practical implications in regard to the realisation of Council works carried out on the ground within its jurisdiction?

Response:
The Climate Emergency Declaration provided direction to the recently endorsed Sustainability Strategy. The Sustainability Strategy is implemented through changes or development of policy and procedures which influences the Council's operations.

2. Does Council’s determination of a Climate Emergency have any veracity as a City of Launceston policy?

Response:
As answered above, the Sustainability Strategy is the key Council policy position on how the Declaration is to be implemented. City of Launceston

3. Beyond the rhetoric, does Council’s determination of a Climate Emergency have any strategic importance going forward and if so where can the city’s citizenry find documentation of this policy to guide them in their strategic decision making?

Response:
The Climate Emergency Declaration has given direction to the recently endorsed Sustainability Strategy. Initial actions contained within the Sustainability Strategy are underway to assess the Council's baseline carbon footprint and community action planning to work with our community in addressing climate impacts and issues. These actions build on the past decade of the Council's energy efficiency and renewable energy use, demonstrating cost saving and a commitment to sustainability across the breadth of the Council's operations, including building and assets, traffic, transport and parking, cultural and sporting services and facilities, procurement and waste management. As a significant and complex challenge, climate change requires a wellconsidered and persistent response, which is the Council's approach. The Sustainability Strategy is available on Council's website.

4. Who within Council has delegated authority backed by the relevant expertise to determine a course of action in the realisation Council development relative to declared policies? Also, what experience and expertise do they have in order to qualify them to make appropriate determinations in this area of Council’s operations?

Response:
The Council has a diverse range of employees with qualifications and experience relative to the roles they undertake within the Council. Where necessary, formal delegations support decisions being made in accordance with legislative requirements.

5. In regard to the Churchill Park carpark development who authorised the removal the removal of trees to facilitate the development? Given that a decision was made on what basis was it made?

Response:
Following extensive public consultation, the Churchill Park Masterplan for the precinct was approved in an open Council Meeting on 16 July 2018. The Masterplan identified the trees to be impacted. City of Launceston

The Churchill Park Masterplan includes a current commitment of over $2 million (2018/2019 and 2019/2020 financial years), including:

upgrade of the existing car parking to address safety and capacity issues;

construction of two additional playing fields; and

relocation of the centre car parking area to allow for the additional grounds.

6. Does Council have an up to date register of significant trees and groupings of trees and associated vegetation that documents the significance of the tree, trees and/or the placescaping and cultural landscaping within which they exist? If so where can the city’s citizens and others gain access to the register? If there is no such register why does it not exist?

Response:
Council maintains an extensive register of trees but this register does not apply criteria for significance. This information is available on the Tree Explorer App, accessible through the Council's website.

Excluding the Council's bushland reserves, the Council maintains approximtely 30,000 trees in municipal parks and streets. Trees within the streets and parks are managed in accordance with the Council's Tree Management Policy which is available on the Council's website.

This Tree Management Policy provides a clear and consistent management approach to ensure that the City of Launceston's trees are:

recognised as valuable community assets;

adequately protected from works and development;

maintained in a healthy condition to increase useful life expectancy; and

removed only under defined conditions.

7. Is the significance of the mature trees removed at Churchill Park acknowledged in any way and especially so in regard to the role they play in environmentally securing the now defunct landfill site?

Response:
The health and condition of the trees was assessed by an arborist to with the aim to retain as many trees as possible. Due to the existing site conditions these trees have been in decline for a number of years. A number of dead and dying trees have been removed over the past decade in this space. Replacement plantings are planned for this area. City of Launceston


8. How many trees have actually been removed and how many more in the area are intended to be removed for any reason? Indeed, what trees elsewhere are currently under threat of removal?

Response:
The trees within the footprint of the Stage 2 carpark have been removed. The remaining trees will be retained and protected. Trees may be periodically removed when identified as unsafe in our accordance with the Council's Tree Management Policy.

9. What mitigation is intended to overcome the consequences of the removal of the trees that have removed and upon what expert advice is Council relying in regard to such mitigation?

Response:
A qualified arborist undertook the assessment. Due to natural loss of vegetation due to site conditions revegetation at Heritage Forest is an ongoing process.

10. Is this an instance where SECTION 62 of the Tasmanian Local Government Act 1993 when the General Manager will determine a way forward or is it an instance where Council will decide the matter and/or reinforce its policy determination in open Council?

Response:
The Climate Emergency Declaration and Sustainability Strategy were endorsed in open Council Meetings and the General Manager is implementing these in accordance with functions and powers outlined in section 62 of the Local Government Act 1993 (Tas). City of Launceston


11. What is the estimated cost to ratepayers in regard to resolving this matter and when will it be provided to ratepayers in order that interested parties can be informed relative to their planning in like situations?

Response:
The matter relates to an approved DA for a high use recreation area and ongoing parks maintenance, subject to existing policies and procedures. The Council's staff are undertaking the tree management work. There are no additional costs attached to this other than that already budgeted for the project, which was developed in response to demand by the community to improve the playing field facilities for the substantial number of families that participate in sporting activities at the site.

QVMAG ANNUAL REPORT IN REVIEW

FOREWORD

The QVMAG's 2018-19 Annual Report should be seen as one of the most concerning documents to come out of Launceston's governance in recent times. Read critically, the evidence for functional unaccountability and the opacity of both governance and management is in plain view for anyone who wants to see it.

Moreover, the General Manager's statement in the press ... "Under the reform, the council is also looking at how to transition the Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery and UTAS Stadium to a more contemporary and appropriate governance model." is a demonstration of his use of SECTION 62 of Local Government Act 1993. This is essentially an 'emergency power'  ascribed to his position and one that has been serially, and somewhat surreally, misused by recent incumbents. 

Here there is a good case for the proposition that the elected representatives, the QVMAG's Trustees by default, have stood haplessly by in disregard for their duty of care and the trust invested in them in their 'governance role'. Who has investments in the institution? Well: 

• Launceston's ratepayers; 

• Tasmania's taxpayers; 

• National and international donors and sponsors;

• Scholars and researchers; and 

• The owners of cultural and intellectual property held in QVMAG collections. 

That all this involves the expenditure of something in the order of $7Million of public monies, is non-trivial – and this is further compounded by the fact that there is an estimated $230Million plus in public assets at risk.

There must be change and 'reportedly' over some years external advice has been sought, and paid for – and by all accounts these 'expert consultants' have been paid quite handsomely. This 2018/19 report raises concerns that have remained unaddressed for far too long.

The status quo must not be allowed to persist. The current state of affairs must be brought to an end and with some urgency.

To read the review GO2

https://qvmag20182019.blogspot.com/

GORGE HOTEL Letters to the editor Dec 2

 
Letters to the editor | December 2, 2019

More hotel questions

WELL this Gorge Hotel business has to be the proposal that keeps taking.

To get to the root cause of this mess we need to understand why professional advice, from council officers to councillors, said the proposal was compliant.

So clear was the failure to meet building requirements only two of the four grounds were fully considered by the RMPAT.

Did diligent, professional council planners not consider the Launceston Interim Building Scheme (2015) and how likely a test against those requirements would rule the proposal out?

Who knows what really happened?

We do know that it's a flawed process that delivers a recommendation that fails on appeal.

We need an independent investigation of council processes that delivered this hapless recommendation to councillors.

No doubt there will be some lessons learnt and the cost of the investigation more than likely offset in the near future.

Here in Launceston we have a diligent group of people representing us on council.

They deserve good advice.

And professional planners need to be properly heard without fear or favour (should an investigation suggest this an issue).

Mitchell Dabelstein, Launceston.

Special treatment?

SO Dean Cocker from the JAC Group is re-submitting the Gorge Hotel proposal and expects the Launceston City Council to change its own planning laws to expedite this development.

From what was in the local paper it seems this edifice didn't meet the LCC's own planning laws, yet all but one councillor voted for it to go ahead.

Only one councillor had the guts to go against what he was expected to do.

Should the council change its own planning laws, then can we all expect to be able to build or demolish whatever we want, because they can't do it for one and not do it for the whole group of we ratepayers?

Like the state government, our council seems to be riding roughshod over anyone who threatens the status quo and woe betide anyone who dares go against them.

Someone on the radio on Wednesday likened our state to one going in the direction of a police state and it's not hard to see why.

No consultation and if you protest throw them in jail, probably the one whose location the Liberals didn't tell the residents of Westbury about until they announced it to the media.

Glennis Sleurink, Launceston.

..................................................

COMMENT 

Interesting letters and mostly for the sentiments they project. They raise some interesting side issues. A key factor that has come into play is the issue of professional advice.

Section 65 of the Local Govt Act requires the General Manager to guarantee the advice offered to Council. This is a matter of law!

It is of some interest that the GM once held the position of Director of Planning at Launceston Council. Consequently, the councillors had every right to expect that the advice he and his planning staff offered could/should indeed be relied upon. It has turned out differently.

There is increasing evidence that the City of Launceston needs a root and branch overhaul but the evidence thus far in regard to its 'Strategic Organizational Realignment' is not encouraging as information is drip fed to ratepayers et al. It would seem that anything and everything that can be done to protect senior management from meaningful accountability is being, and will be, done.

Most concerning is the propensity  GM's apparent reliance upon Section 62 of the Local Govt. Act. Basically this emergency provision allows a GM to do almost anything and it is being employed to the Nth Degree – and at the drop of a hat.

NB While all councillors, bar one, voted to approve the Gorge Hotel proposal, Councillor Spenser was not present due to illness.  Thus  he did not vote in support of the proposal. It can only be a matter of speculation as to how he might have voted if he was present to do so.