Jackson Worthington. MARCH 3 2020
The council decided to bring in two consultants to produce a statement of expectations for the council in November last year.
A statement of expectations committee was created and consisted of the mayor, deputy mayor, Cr Rob Churchill, the general manager and the two independent consultants, Greg Preece and Lynn Mason.
Ms Mason, who is the chairman of the statement of expectations committee, said the goal was to create an outline of standards and behaviours which reflected best practice for everyone involved in council activities.
As part of the process Ms Mason and Mr Preece reviewed the council to determine what areas needed to be improved on.
They separated responsibilities for the review, with Mr Preece focused on the organisational side of the council, while Ms Mason focused on the elected members.
Ms Mason said it was important everyone involved realised the council was not running optimally.
"All councillors and senior staff need to realise that this council is not operating optimally, and that improving it is a shared responsibility," she said.
"That responsibility is not down to any one person. It is not shared equally, but it is shared."
Her report also outlined the need to ensure all elected members understood their responsibility while acting as the planning authority.
"This is quite common in local governments across Australia," Ms Mason said.
"Acting as the planning authority is a complex matter and this is a relatively new council dealing with some complicated planning issues."
She was not implying council had made any mistakes while acting as the planning authority.
Mr Preece's report found the council to be non-compliant with the Local Government Act 1993 because it lacked an asset management plan, asset management strategy and long term financial management plan.
"They've got some existing documents produced in 2014 that have not been updated and do not account for all the assets council own," he said.
"At the time the asset management plan only covered roads and footpaths."
"It didn't cover council buildings, parks and reserves or the port infrastructure they own."
He said updating the documents was usually part of normal procedures.
"It should be built into your normal processes but obviously they had lacked some of those processes," Mr Preece said.
COMMENT
This is an interesting state of affairs and a further demonstration that the Act is way out date and well past its use by date. That the State Govt is disinclined to deal comprehensively with the mode of governance in the state this kind of band aid, knee jerk activity is bound to continue at the expense of RATEPAYERS. This is not a good look. There are councils in the Tasmania that claim that they are on top of the issues and there is no need for fundamental change.
On the other hand, there are councils that are failing to deliver service commensurate with ratepayer’s investment. It is a no-brainer the model is broken and way too clunky. It serves the functionaries, and the elected representatives, and only then in so much as they are empowered to conscript rates for the purpose of paying salaries, allowances and superannuation. It’s too good a business to be in to eb wanting anything different.
So, hapless ratepayers have nothing for it but to put the blow torch on this whole sick and sorry business model.
No comments:
Post a Comment