LCC's New Consultation Policy Looks More and More Cynical

In the end this idea that the ratepayers should be consulted about their rates now has all the signs of being a relatively cynical exercise. If you have any experience in bureaucracy at all you know that you NEVER go into a meeting unless you already know what the outcome will be. We should have seen this one coming.

Launceston City Council's GM, Robert Dobrzynski, advocated the process and he received some aldermanic resistance ... surprise surprise. There are a number of Aldermen that harbour the idea that ratepayers gave up all interest in the management of council and the city when the polls were declared. Has anyone met a ratepayer like that?

On the face of it Mr. Dobrzynski needed to be congratulated for his stance that gave ratepayers a louder voice and the association did congratulate him. BUT it is a different story once the submission process is over. It is unclear what is being done with or about the submissions that came from the process. Filtered one suspects. This is an unfolding story and it looks like the picture is less and less pretty as time passes .

Interestingly Ald. Ball was a strong advocate for the process and true to form he delivered some impassioned rhetoric on the subject. There were two meetings and both were poorly attended. Curiously, Ald. Ball was not at either of the meetings he was such a passionate advocate for and neither was he an apology for either of them. The title "Alderman Bandwagon" does seem to have something to it and increasingly so.

Ald. Ball as an alderman has complex views on many things and he is a vociferous advocate too. At the last council meeting there was yet another example of his complexity in action. The matter under consideration was the removal of a dangerous tree but it seems that Ald. Ball was sticking up for its retention. Anyone who read the article in The Examiner could see that this tree needed to be removed but there was a bandwagon to jump on here and it seems Ald. Ball just couldn't resist .... click here to read the story

To return to the rates issue in Launceston, it is going to be interesting to see who jumps where but one suspects all the jumping will be done as they say "in camera." Its odds on that nothing much will change from the original proposition. The same old, same old reigns supreme, so watch this space! It would be very nice to be wrong for a change!

COUNCIL PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

Well it has to be said that Frank Dean hits the nail on the head. North Midlands' Councilors have behaved better than many other Council and demonstrated some constraint. What is often noticeable for Council budgets in general terms is that they typically increase at a rate in excess of the CPI.

If you ask an officer why this is so and you'll get a load of blah blah blah blah AND your bull dust alarm will ring very early in the conversation. Ask an Alderman/Councilor and you'll typically get officer generated bureau babble spouted at you and something along the lines that it is hard to blah blah blah blah AND your bull dust alarm will ring very loudly again.

What we all need to understand is that largely council officers are:

• very good at spending ratepayers' money;
• often not all that good at accountability
  
• good at ensuring that their salaries and superannuation continually rise without too much performance assessment interfering; and
• not at all good at devising alternative income opportunities to relieve ratepayers' rate bills – waste management versus resource recovery being a very good example.

Aldermen and Councillors need to hold their officers more accountable and ensure that they diligently carry out Council policy. They should also be subjected to regular tests that will tell ratepayers just how well they have performed against a set of standards.

Launceston City Council's 2011-2012 rate striking process

The General Manager's initiative to consult with Launceston's ratepayers in regard to the striking of the annual rate before it was actually struck was unwelcomed by three Aldermen but wholeheartedly endorsed by the city's Ratepayer's Association. Does that tell you anything?

Well the Association has taken the opportunity to make a submission to Council on the subject, so let's see where that goes. Ratepayers write to the press and one imagines that the bureaucrats at Town Hall will disregard them as will many Aldermen. The bureaucrats seem to think that more of the same will do it for them – it has up to now. They'll predictably be fighting for the status quo – unless there has been a mind shattering shift in their sentiments – and all the consultation will look like just so much window dressing.

Typically 'community consultation' in Launceston involves bureaucrats telling ratepayers and residents what is good for them rather than an opportunity to listen to them and to take on board new information.

The cynics seem to be finding indicators that the process here was less genuine than it might have been and has been presented as. If ratepayers are treated like mushrooms, and in the past they have been, their cynicism should have been expected. The test will be when the rate is struck! Let us see if there is indeed an effort to be more equitable and better financial managers.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE RATEPAYERS' ASSOCIATION SUBMISSION TO COUNCIL

The Absurdity of AAV for calculating Municipal Rates _ Letter to Mayor & Aldermen

The Tasmanian Ratepayers Assoc. has written to Launceston's Mayor a Aldermen – copied below – and to date for whatever reason there has been only been one Alderman who has seen a need to responded to the correspondence ... click here to read the thread of correspondence

WED JUNE 8 2011
Mayor and Aldermen,
Launceston City Council.

The Tasmanian Ratepayers Association Inc is indebted to Leo Foley for preparing this interesting piece. Launceston City Council is NOT obliged to use the AAV system in establishing its rates. The legislation clearly allows Launceston to select another of the alternative methods. It has long been recognized at Local and State Government levels that AAV should be abandoned as it is unjust and bears an inequitable basis for rating.

The State Government PROMISED Tasmanians that this system would be abandoned by LEGISLATION but this milestone has not yet been reached and the latest promise is by about November this year. This is extremely disappointing, given the hardship created the last time Launceston was previously revalued and now to be again repeated with the new valuation notices distributed a week or so ago.

Launceston could CHOOSE to use the Land Valuation figure to levy its rate, so why not ACT NOW ??

Launceston could also CHOOSE to limit or cap its rates for residential properties, so why not ACT NOW ??

Since 2006, there have been replacement Aldermen elected to Launceston City Council, all promising REFORM ON RATING, so why hasn’t this occurred ?

In 2011, there will be another election.

PLEASE, PLEASE now consider a different rating system. Don’t repeat the old system. Capping increases at 20% IS AN EXTRAORDINARY INSULT to ratepayers, as clearly that means many many ratepayers will pay less, pay no more, or pay less than the 4% increase expected across the board.

We look forward to receiving individual responses from each and every Alderman.

Yours sincerely,
Lionel Morrell
President
Tasmanian Ratepayers Association Inc.
Tel. 6331 6144

"Absurdity of Rating Improvements (AAV) We descend from a long history of destructive property taxes!
Windows were taxed in the UK, so people boarded up their windows, making them ill!
France had its chimney tax, so people boarded them up too, smoking residents to death.
In the UK Midlands, a capital improvements tax led to the de-roofing of buildings. Absurd? Of course; but – should we laugh at our forebears? Are we any wiser?
Under Assessed Annual Value (AAV), anyone who erects a dwelling is penalized ! Then, the homeowner is penalized again whenever they improve their property. Add a room – up go the rates! Establish paths—up go the rates! Build a garage – up go the rates! AAV not only taxes chimneys and windows, it taxes the whole house!
Property value consists of two separate parts: 1. the land value itself; and 2. the value of the buildings and other improvements made by the owner. •
The AAV system fails to distinguish between the value of these separate parts. Rates are levied on the property as a whole – on land and all improvements.
Land gets its value from the efforts of the whole community, not any one individual. Under a principled system of rating, property owners would pay in proportion to the value given to their sites by the community (ie on land value), not according to the value of their own improvements.
Some of the inefficient consequences of AAV are:

1. AAV penalizes the industrious homeowner, thus discouraging improvements. Those who renovate find that they must pay higher rates for their efforts.
2. AAV is arbitrary and unjust. The system bears little relationship to services rendered by the local authority.
3. Under AAV, rates are borne disproportionately on developed properties, compared to vacant land. It costs nearly as much to maintain a road past a vacant property as it does to maintain that road past an improved one.
4. AAV encourages the holding of land for speculative purposes. There is a lesser levy payable for holding land idle, than for using it.
5. AAV rating is inequitable. Owners who build on their land are liable for a higher proportion of the income of the municipality than the owners of underdeveloped land, although the services offered to each by the council are identical.
6. AAV has no moral basis. Not only does it fail to distinguish between land and improvements,
7. AAV is a nominal figure only. It is the rent which a property might return to the owner. Since most homeowners do not rent out their house, it has no true basis.

Land differs from every other form of property. It is nature’s free gift to all of us. When a person builds a house, the house is their private property because they built it. It does not belong to the community, and the community has no right to the house or its value.

Do we, as a society, need more houses?
Yes! We need to house our young families. So, don’t penalize people for building them! Infill development should not be penalized by higher rates, but encouraged by the need to derive income from sites in order to cover the rates thereon.
When ratepayers know that the council will charge them rates only on the value of their sites and not on the value of their homes or other improvements, they respond by becoming improvement-minded. The building and construction industries are stimulated, and a higher level of activity is maintained.
The Local Government Act 1993, gives the option of using one of three rating systems to Tasmanian councils: S 90 (3) A general rate is to be based on one of the following categories of values of land: (a) the land value of the land; (b) the capital value of the land; (c) the assessed annual value of the land (including improvements). In Tasmania, all municipal councils opt to levy rates on the AAV method. By comparison, all municipal councils in NSW and Queensland levy rates on the ‘Land Value’ method. Most ratepayer polls around Australia have found a majority favour the ‘Land Value’ method.
Why should ratepayers be faced with the worst system? Insist on your rates being based on land values only!

Posted in Economics, Local government, Rates « Are higher house prices good for society? Is ‘User-Pays’ fair? »

TASMANIAN RATEPAYERS CONGRATULATE LAUNCESTON'S GM

CLICK ON THE LETTER TO ENLARGE

Living Cooperatively: Affordable Housing

Its an idea worth exploring but stand back and listen to all the reasons as why it cannot be done .... well not in Tasmania.

Living Cooperatively: Affordable Housing – Sustainable Development - a Swedish model – has aroused quite a bit of interest, and there were similar ideas on display at Melbourne’s Sustainable Living Festival.

What’s happening in Tasmania? Not much but there is some cooperative hosing in Hobart yet nothing springs to mind for Launceston.

Sustainable Living In Intentional Communities (SLIC) is a group auspiced by the Sustainable Living Foundation (SLF) as it works towards a society that includes:

* Cohousing, where residents own their own home, but regularly share in community activities including common meals, centred around a community house. Cohousing communities are designed to address and encourage social interaction and ... click here to go to the full story

CLICK HERE TO SUBSCRIBE TO 'Pigs Will Fly'

PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: A good idea if you can get some

The Premier has non-performers in the public service in her sights. We congratulate her for this and ask that she include local government in her efficiency cum expenditure review. We are fearful that if she doesn’t her duds will finish up working for Councils around the State.

Really, they all need to get a real job and go to Western Australia to dig up iron ore.

It is important that the pendulum swings back towards the value for money side of the equation. Too many timeservers are employed in public service and that is across the board. It is as bad in local government as it may be in the State Govt. public service. It might even be worse.

If we look at Launceston, ratepayers dealing with Council, according to a recent survey, have a better than 40% chance of encountering an uncooperative or inefficient or inept functionary somewhere along the way. This is disturbing.

Furthermore, if one was to take a long hard look at what council has achieved in the last financial year there is nothing worth throwing a bouquet at but there are many targets for brickbats. This must tell us something.

So the plea is out to Premier Giddings, please do not stop at the State Govt. public service and deliver up to ratepayers a way of disposing of non-performing staff in their councils as well. This last financial year some have cost ratepayers hundreds of thousands of dollars.

A way to start would be to have some truly independent performance reviews where there was a disinclination to be generous. But do not hold your breath or look for a good outcome, or better performances, anytime soon. There are too many with too much at stake to allow cost saving of this kind at Town Hall. Watch the budget for the evidence!

WE TOLD YOU SO: Ratepayers see red ... again and again and again

Alison Andrews heading in the Examiner yesterday "Aquatic centre in a sea of red" was very cold comfort for Launceston's ratepayers ... click here to read more

"A $30,000 review has been urgently commissioned to find ways to stop the Launceston Aquatic Centre from bleeding $1.2 million a year." Again $30K seems like a magic number ... wasn't that what it cost the then GM, Frank Dixon, for dancers to open the place?

Launceston City Council's newish GM, Robert Dobrzynski "wants their (the consultants') recommendations on his desk by early next month so that there is time to use their findings in the preparation of the council budget for next financial year." Word has it that he's already told them what they must tell him but there you go that's how bureaucracy works these days – expensive consultant advice at almost every turn.

Now ratepayers told Council – Aldermen & officers – back in August 2007 in a MEDIA RELEASE that this foolhardy venture was bound to cost ratepayers dearly. Trouble is it was FREE ADVICE and totally dismissible because it came from ratepayers ... click here to read the 2007 Media Release

Curiously, Mr Dobrzynski's allies, as he sees it on this issue, are most likely to be "the ratepayers" since there are Aldermen who would prefer to keep all this stuff behind closed doors – especially in an election year. He knows that if this happens he'll end up wearing all the odium of poor Aldermanic decision-making down the line. This is demonstrated by the trouble he is having getting a unanimous Aldermanic tick of approval for a public consultation meeting for the 2011-2012 budget.

You see quite a few of them believe in the 'Divine Right of Aldermen' and the abdication theory. That is the one that goes, ratepayers have voted us in so we do not need to consult them because in voting for us they passed all responsibility to us. Apparently, in this theory accountability is discretionary.

It appears that the aquatic centre was over budget by more than $416,000 for the last quarter alone, with fears that the annual loss will rise above $1.2 million. However, down at Town Hall the budget process is a lot to do with smoke and mirrors and the REAL LOSSES are likely to be much greater if all the project's costs are counted – and they are not likely to be. It seems "quality assurance" and "performance assessments" are sensitive terms.

It also seems that the Aldermen, like mushrooms, are in the dark here and fed copious quantities of male bovine excrement. There are good arguments to suggest that the FULL cost of the centre have been hidden away for some reason.

Back in 2007, when ratepayers predicted all this, Launceston's ratepayers were never told about the full costs of the project or that they will be subsidising and paying off this Regional facility forever at the rate of some $86 per ratepayer per annum. As rates rise there are fewer places to hide as ratepayer turn over more rocks looking accountability.

It was time then but isn't it also about time now that all of Launceston ratepayers were democratically and directly polled on this project – its an election year remember. Or, do we need a 1,000 signature petition to hold a plebiscite to vote on the future of the Aquatic Centre? Or, do we need to indulge in civic amnesia for the benefit of the Aldermen who championed this diabolical, and ego boosting, project in the face of contrary advice, reason and logic.

This is but one issue but let's see if Mr Dobrzynski gets his public consultation meeting on the budget, and if he does, let's see what it reveals. General Managers go and new ones come but many of the Aldermen who burdened the ratepayers with an aquatic centre they could ill afford are still there. Let's see them scurrying for cover in coming weeks as their budget strategies ( past & present) unfold and unravel.

In the end there is no comfort at all in being able to say "I told you so."

REIMAGINING WASTE AS A RESOURCE: Can we do it?

Click here to go to City to Soil and watch the videos

THINK OF GREEN WASTE AS A RESOURCE: Dare we do it?

CLICK ON AN IMAGE TO ENLARGE IT














WHAT IS HOLDING US BACK?

A CLAYTON’S PROMISE ON LCC RATES

Launceston’s ratepayers were somewhat encouraged last year when the city’s new GM promised a different future in regard to the setting of the city’s rates. For a moment there it looked like that the ‘new broom’ GM was set to make a difference.

The promise was that:
• The GM would be presenting the 2011-2012 Budget in draft form to the public; and that
• He would be calling for submissions from ratepayers prior to presenting the budget to Council for the consideration of the 2011-12 Rate.

If that had happened, or is to happen, then ratepayers would welcome the opportunity to contribute to the discourse to do with rate setting in the city. Importantly, this would imply that all wisdom on the matter cannot not reside at Town Hall with the Council officers and Aldermen– a novel idea perhaps.

Sadly when the GM was first tested on his ‘promise’ he came up wanting and seemingly he flicked the issue to an underling. So it seems that it may be a ‘CLAYTON’S PROMISE’ – you know the one you have when you are not delivering on one. Interestingly the underlings are duck shoving the issue and as they say “heading to the hills at 100 mph.”

Henceforth in Launceston perhaps we should be regarding these promises as ‘DOBRZYNSKI PROMISES’ and as a Launcestoian cultural phenomenon – promises made by a GM but not intended to be kept for whatever reason. Indeed, it looks like that this one is not alone and that there are others a waiting in the wings to be brought to light.

However the issue here is, is it the GM who is failing to deliver or is it the Aldermen, or some of them, who are recalcitrant here? As this goes online the good Aldermen are apparently considering a report prepared by the GM. Will the good Aldermen’s support, or otherwise, be unanimous? Whatever, in an election year it will be revealing and likely to be a subject for discussion at the next public budget meeting if there is one.

All the while the city’s ratepayers face the prospect of hefty rate increases based on new valuations that the GM and his financial underlings seem to think are justifiable as a “Wealth Tax” – the bureaucratic understanding of rate collection in support of their salaries and superannuation.

Ratepayers are typically depressed at this time each year thinking about the rate increases they are about to receive and the loss of services they are likely to experience. There is so so much waste and so so much of ratepayers hard earned consigned to the loo. One day this must change and someone must be held to account.

MORE HYDRO SPIN

Just couldn't resist putting this up ... Does it ring any bells??

"Our Vision and Values provide direction on what kind of organisation we are and how we conduct business. Our vision To be Tasmania's world-renowned renewable energy business. Our values

• We put people’s health and safety first
• We strive to deliver outstanding service
• We always behave with honesty and integrity
• We work together, respect each other and value our diversity
• Our positive and determined approach ensures our success
• We are committed to creating a sustainable future
  

Our values are truly 'ours'. They were formed from input from all of our people and are reviewed periodically to ensure they are still reflective of who we are. Our values provide direction and clarity about the way we make decisions, achieve our goals, provide service to our customers, work together and care for the environment."

OH REALLY!!!???

THE HYDRO'S SPIN

Click here for the Hydro's spin on the Cataract Gorge's needs and theirs

The Gorge Gets Another Political Workover

IN THE EXAMINER TODAY

"Increase for Gorge 'trickle'
BY ALISON ANDREWS CHIEF REPORTER
08 Apr, 2011 08:32 AM

AN alderman has dismissed a promised one- cubic-metre increase in water flow through Launceston's Cataract Gorge as a disappointing trickle.

Hydro Tasmania announced yesterday that it had concluded its two-year review to determine the appropriate environmental flow through the Gorge.

Hydro business sustainability manager Andrew Scanlon said it had decided to increase the base flow from 1.5 cumecs to 2.5 cumecs.

"We think that this is a good result for the Gorge and a good result for Launceston," Mr Scanlon said.

"There was not a lot of difference to be seen between 2.5 cumecs and 3 cumecs. ... click here to go to the article

NOW, Mr. Scanlon's assertions and assessments are being challenged. Their veracity is in question and given that this is a hot issue in Launceston we can expect to to the politicians line up to lob their grenades into Mr. Scanlon's backyard. It should not be forgotten either that this is ELECTION YEAR for Aldermen and the coveted posts of Mayor and Deputy Mayor.

The Esk Rivers and the Tamar come together to form one of Tasmania's most contentious waterways. Unsurprisingly the Hydro is in the thick of the contention and mostly because their assertions and assessments are typically self-serving and arrogant – lacking in veracity too more often than not.

For now just watch this space as rancor unfolds and the recalcitrant Hydro ducks and dives in an attempt to unblot their copy book even if it is way past time for that. Their reputation is probably irrevocably stained.

The Hydro & The Cataract Gorge Launceston

LETTER TO THE EDITOR _ GORGE FLOWS

Click on the image to enlarge
Click here to go to its source

The energy in this image is palpable
Click here to go to The Examiner's Gorge in Flood Gallery

PATHETIC is the only way to describe the outcome of Hydro Tasmania's Cataract Gorge Flow Review, (The Examiner, 7 April), which has proven to be (as I said it would at the start) nothing more than a sham, a mockery and a whitewash with a pre-determined outcome.

Last financial year the Hydro returned a profit of $73 million, YES $73 million, and can easily afford to increase Gorge flows well above the extra miserly 1 cubic metre per second they intend to release; then they have the gall to state this will reduce their income by a mere $600,000 per annum.

By not significantly increasing Gorge flow above this level Hydro Tasmania are completely ignoring: scientific opinion, the wishes of the Launceston community; Launceston City Council and the environmental needs of the Cataract Gorge and Tamar Basin.

To use the excuse of threatened species of flora as a reason not to increase Gorge flows is nothing more than an insult to the communities intelligence who would like to know how it managed to survive pre Trevallyn Dam when Gorge flows were 'significantly' higher than they are now?

As a stakeholder I am 'ashamed' to have participated in this review and enabled Hydro Tasmania to say they have consulted with the community; they certainly did but then ...completely ignored what they had to say!

Yours sincerely,
Jim Collier,
Tamar River

QVMAG: GRAND EXPOSE AT WELLINGTON STREET

Click on the image to enlarge

This weekend in Wellington Street Launceston’s ratepayers and other will be given a glimpse of where all their money has gone and is going at the Queen Victoria Museum & Art Gallery. The promise is that they’ll “be blown away” and they probable will.

The chances are that they will be given that something approaching $10 million has been in invested in the project – approx dollar for dollar Government and Council funding apparently. Some will be amazed at just what you get for that much money and inevitably there will be some who will say that the money could have been better spent elsewhere and in ways that delivered better social outcomes.

Depending on what goes on in this refurbished building they could be right or very wrong. Nobody will see much of a hint of any of that this weekend. After all, in the end, this is just a building and what goes on it that is likely to justify the expenditure.

However, looking at the building from the street if you wish to be impressed by your glimpse of the future, and what is in store for you, you had better not glimpse upwards on the way in or from across the street. Those pesky and abominable air conditioning ducts are still there in all their glory and announcing the fact that if you do not manage the details you compromise the overall effort and its goals.

If you are spending near enough to $10 million you would think that you might spend some time getting the details right, this is an art gallery after all. The promise was that it would happen but looking at the roofline it does not seem so. Apparently these ducts are going to be camouflaged so as they will visually disappear. Is it leopard spots or tiger stripes that are being considered?

It is an interesting idea that seems to have more bureaucratic credibility than visual integrity. It is sadly an indicator that near enough seems to be good enough no matter how much you throw at a project and pay the project managers.

However, look downwards on the way in and look for more positive signs when you turn up to see how the money (your money) has been spent.

HENRY ST. AGAIN

It is interesting how the General Manager keeps on turning up in The Examiner trying to explain the inexplicable. Here Council has clearly earned their stripes and an acknowledgement of that might have offered a way forward, But oh no, even if it was before his time, he seems to lack the humility to acknowledge a mistake when he is presented with it.

NOW on page 57 of today's Examiner Mr Dobrzynski bleats on about AFT Tasmania failing to respond to correspondence when he himself is a serial non-performer in this regard. To quote, and not altogether out of context, "It's disappointing that we wrote to [Scott Wade] on July 28, 2010, following discussions we'd had and we've not had a reply ... I've had a distinct view of disinterest from AFL Tasmania as evidenced by the fact that eight months later we're still waiting for a response to that letter." ... click her to read the full story

This seems to tell us that Mr Dobrzynski seems to require people to behave in ways he doesn't always.There are ratepayers waiting for a response from Mr Dobrzynski and who know as he says he does, that the first thing they've got to do is respond because "you cannot have a one-sided conversation."

Ratepayers are increasingly trying to hold two way conversations with LCC without success.

COUNCIL BLUNDER ON HENRY STREET

It seems that there has been a somewhat concerning planning blunder on Henry Street Ravenswood, and arguably one made by Council Officers.

In Council approving a development for 66-88 Henry St. will this mean a very expensive acquisition in the future?

Alternatively, will it be enough to prevent the road or otherwise cause a more expensive or longer route ?

Even if Launceston's General Manager, Robert Dobrzynski, now argues that:

• Council has (or more correctly, may in the future) adopt another suitable course for such a road; and
  
• incorporate that road as a future road in the new Interim Planning Scheme;

then the appropriate course would have been for council to have firstly proposed an amendment to the present planning scheme, removing the present zoning and substituting the alternative future road course. Then the way would have been open (if the amendment was approved by the Tasmanian Planning Commission) for this residential development to proceed to approval without difficulty.

Alternatively, if the new course became part of the Interim Planning Scheme (thus avoiding an amendment to the present scheme), the same result would occur.

Yet again Launceston's ratepayers are at risk of bearing the cost of a bureaucratic blunder, the kind of blunder that tends to accumulate and provide a background for unsustainable rate increases sometime in the future.

Where is the quality assurance in Council decision making? Where can we find if it exists? Who is accountable to who in all this?

Presently, the Tasmanian Ratepayers Association's current submission is that the current construction of a private residence encroaching on the Zoned Future Road (minimum 200m wide reservation, plus a setback dimension) is not valid.

CLICK TO SEE THE RELEVANT CORRESPONDENCE

This is the correspondence concerning the encroachment by a new house development on the land zoned for Future Road as part of an Eastern Road bypassing Launceston central area.

LAUNCESTON CITY COUNCIL: New way to have your say!

MEDIA RELEASE
March 29 2011

The Launceston City Council has unveiled a new method to make it easier for residents to participate in the decision-making around key projects in the Council area.

The Your Voice. Your Launceston. website is an easy, safe and convenient way for the community to contribute ideas and opinions about key projects. There are many ways to participate via the website, including completing surveys, sending in submissions and contributing to online discussions. The site can be accessed at www.yourvoiceyourlaunceston.tas.gov.au

Launceston City Council General Manager Robert Dobrzynski said "I encourage all residents to check out the Your Voice. Your Launceston website and have their say. The Council values residents' involvement and input into key projects and wants to provide as many opportunities as possible for people to join in."

Registration is required for people wanting to participate and post their own comments in the online discussions forums, but anyone can download the project materials and read the
forum discussions. Registration is quick and easy, allowing people to sign up and contribute
anonymously by creating their own username.

Privacy is protected because the registration and online discussion forums are moderated by an independent organisation.

The first project to utilise this form of community consultation is the Launceston Public Spaces and Public Life report prepared by the world renowned urban design firm, Gehl Architects. Residents are invited to download and read the report and to join in the online discussion forum that has been established at www.yourvoiceyourlaunceston.com.au/public-spaces.

The Launceston Public Spaces and Public Life comment period will be open until 29 April 2011.

Mr Dobrzynski said "Your Voice. Your Launceston. is one of several ways the Council invites community participation. It will complement information available from the Council's website and Community Update Packs and supports other consultation forums, such as the Residents' Panel, community meetings and surveys.

"We are conscious that different people engage in different ways and Your Voice. Your Launceston. is another forum that the Council believes many people will find convenient and accessible. It is anticipated that there will be a number of projects put on this website for community consultation."

THE QUESTION OF VALUES

On Monday Launceston’s General Manager, Robert Dobrzynski, at the last Council Meeting, as reported in the Examiner yesterday, engaged in an unseemly stoush with an Alderman, Ald. Rosemary Armitage.

As reported “Alderman Rosemary Armitage had proposed that aldermen be notified of upcoming neighbourhood or street meetings between council officers and ratepayers.”

Mr. Dobrzynski, claimed that his authority was being threatened and claimed that what Ald. Armitage was seeking represented "an unreasonable interference" in his ability to perform his functions as a General Manager. Did it really?

Ratepayers are bemused. Just what is that is the problem here? See these earlier entries ... [1] ... [2]

• Is it that the GM does not welcome ratepayers winning the support of Aldermen on an issue?
  
• Is it the case that Council Officer’s advice to Aldermen is always consistent with ratepayer’s experience of a consultation process between Council Officers and themselves?
  
• Is it extraordinary that ratepayers should wish to have Aldermen present at a meeting between themselves and Council Officers to have first hand insights into what happened?
  
• Is it unacceptable for ratepayers to wish to have Aldermanic representation or presence at a meeting between themselves and Council Officers on an issue?

One cynical ratepayer has suggested that this whole situation, and others leading up to it, is starting to resonate with undertones of Capt. Queeg in Herman Wouk's 1951 novel and the 1954 movie staring Humphrey Bogart, “The Caine Mutiny” ... Click here for more information on Capt. Queeg

Perhaps it is time to take another look, in fact a good look, at Launceston City Council’s so called core values to do with Integrity, Stewardship, Inclusion, initiative, Teamwork and last but not least Accountability.

Council Officer should revisit the Council website and do a reality check for themselves and the Aldermen need to do the same as well as asking themselves how they rate as upholders of these values. Ratepayers depend upon both Officers and Aldermen to uphold these values but most of all the Aldermen as it is they who endorse them.

Just in case anyone has missed this entry on the Launceston City Council’s website here they are for your information and reference.
Copied from LCC Website 30.03.2011

Organisational Values

Integrity

• We behave ethically;
• We tell the truth;
• We keep our commitments; and
• We meet both the spirit and intent of the law.
  

Stewardship

• We care about people and the community in which we live;
• We operate safely;
• We are environmentally responsible; and
• We strengthen the community.
  

Inclusion

• We value diversity and respect the dignity of each person;
• We value differences in people and perspectives;
• We build relationships based on mutual trust; and
• We recognise the contributions of every individual.
  

Initiative

• We lead the way;
• We have the courage and creativity to shape the future;
• We have the discipline to manage risk; and
• We act decisively in a timely manner.
  

Teamwork

• We work together to achieve superior results;
• We share ideas and talents to develop solutions;
• We support and rely on each other; and
• We value clear and open communication.
  

Accountability

• We take responsibility for our actions;
• We live our values;
• We set clear goals, measure results and seek to improve; and
• We build and protect the Launceston brand and reputation.
  

LINK: http://www.launceston.tas.gov.au/lcc/index.php?c=276#Accountability

SOMETHING TO PONDER: That thought expressed so well by Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803 - 1882) "I don't want any yes-men around me. I want everybody to tell me the truth even if it costs them their jobs."