The Ratepayers Are Getting Angry

Steve Rogers, of South Launcestons, shares 

his views on the 

North Bank development in Launceston.

North Bank

IS IT not good news that the North Bank playground development, at great expense is going ahead?

The great news is that there have been zero representations against this project .

Has the council ever thought that a lot of ratepayers feel it is a complete waste of time, even putting forward a representation against any of the projects, funded by ratepayers of Launceston?

I see all the piling required for the work is complete, before the final development application.

Who foots the bill for the insurance on a venture like this?

What happens if some child, or some intoxicated twit, falls from the proposed 12-metre high sky walk?

By the way, is it time now that the Launceston ratepayers are mature enough, or privileged enough or allowed to know just how much was spent on the LED advertising around the York Park or Aurora Stadium. 

Hang on, now its UTAS Stadium isn't it?

Is it any wonder the ratepayers are not bothered to attend meetings?  The council just pushes the vote through after the job has started.

Steve Rogers, South Launceston.

EDITOR'S NOTE

Launcestonians and Northern Tasmanians last night had the spectacle of Launceston's Mayor on TV bleating away about LGH losing its Emergency Medicine Accreditation. 

Up to now he's been singing the government's praises on almost everything and after the election we find him bleating away as if anybody in government listens. 

They know that he hasn't got the gonads to do anything that'd hurt them so they let him bleat as people bleed and choose to live elsewhere as the city becomes a more and more dangerous place to live.

He and the whole Council should hand in their chips right now and let an administrator take the city to an election for a more accountable Council if we cannot get amalgamation.

SPEAK UP & SPEAK OUT 

RESIDENTS & RATEPAYERS!

A Very Bad Fit

With planning like this you do have to wonder who is into who for what!! This is outrageous planning for a cultural landscape like Launceston's ... outrageous!!

Tell those who claim to represent you what 

you think about rubbish like this in our city!!

Something smells like dead fish at Town Hall

GO TO: https://www.facebook.com/IslandBlock/ to the post and read the comments and if you care share the post and have your say among YOUR network.

Island Block put this on their Facebook site this afternoon and it raises some very serious questions about the credibility and accountability of not only Council's operation but also the credibility and accountability of the elected representatives.

The comments on FACEBOOK speaks volumes about what the constituency thinks about how Council spends money they borrowed on ratepayers behalf without consultation.

In the vernacular, you really do have to wonder who is into who for how much and how deeply. This Council shows all the signs of every last representative holding their constituents in contempt and its way past being funny. 

The Local Govt Act under Section 65 allows the GM to deem whoever she/he likes to be an 'expert' and guarantee their advice. Moreover she/he can do anything they find convenient under Section 62 even if that happens to be  against a determination of the elected representatives. Worrying isn't it!

There are substantial amounts of money involved here – ratepayers money!. Are ratepayers getting a big enough bang for their bucks?

If you think not ... TELL THEM THAT YOU ARE NOT HAPPY ... phone them, email them, comment on social media, speak up every which way and do not forget that this is an ELECTION YEAR.

BTW: This site tonight just 

nudged 63,000 readers

A SHOT ACROSS THE BOW OF THE GOOD SHIP 'POLITICS'

ONE issue in this state election campaign that ought to get an airing is the extent to which the Hodgman government’s much vaunted planning reforms, the Statewide Planning Scheme and the proposed major projects law, represent a disturbing increase in the power of executive government at the expense of the legislature and community. 

In other words, instead of being a laudable case where government establishes a regulatory framework that ensures environmentally and socially enhancing development along with investor certainty, what we have is a dangerous situation where powerful interests can unduly influence a minister and a government. It’s called regulatory capture. 

The previous Labor government began work on a sorely needed statewide planning scheme some years ago and the Hodgman government completed the work.  

The absurd over-regulation of planning in Tasmania allowed for capricious decisions, too much NIMBYism and deterred investment. But the shift to a statewide scheme has been undertaken unsatisfactorily and will put at risk Tasmania’s natural and built heritage. 

 The new planning system vests enormous powers in the planning minister. Under the new Tasmanian Planning Scheme the minister, currently Peter Gutwein, devises and issues what are called State Planning Provisions. These are decrees that set out what is and is not permitted on every inch of land in Tasmania. The extent of the power of whomever is planning minister is evidenced by this explanation by the Government about SPPs: “The SPPs include 23 generic zones which indicate what land use and development is appropriate for each zone such as residential, business, agriculture, utilities, environmental and recreational uses.” 

 The Tasmanian Parliament cannot disallow an SPP and here is no independent body that must certify it, before it is issued. 

This tendency of Mr Gutwein to want to accumulate power is also manifest in another of the Hodgman Government’s planning reforms, the proposed major projects law. Under this law certain projects can be declared major projects by the minister of his or own volition as well as at the request of the project proponent. The criteria for what is a major project is extraordinarily broad. All that the project needs to show is that it meets two criteria out a vacuous list. These criteria include that the project will “make a significant financial contribution to the region or the state; Is of strategic planning significance to a region or the State; Will significantly affect public infrastructure; Has significant environmental, economic or social affects; or Requires two or more approvals under relevant planning, utility, heritage and environmental legislation (project-associated Acts), or the approval or implementation of the project will require assessments of the project by more than one planning authority.’ 

The Hodgman government says that the independent Tasmanian Planning Commission will be the check and balance on the major projects regime. But guess who appoints members of that body? The Minister for Planning. 

But there is a broad coalition concerned about these planning reforms and Professor Michael Buxton from RMIT University, probably Australia’s foremost planning expert, is warning against these changes. 

A group called the Planning Matters Alliance, headed by Sophie Underwood, is advocating greater community participation on planning. What is intriguing about her organisation is that its membership is diverse. Anglicare is a member but so is the Hobart Dog Walking Association. 

Professor Buxton, in a 2016 interview, described the evil arising from planning ministers amassing power in the way that is being done in Tasmania. 

“Nobody knows who is influencing who, how and why. And while developer donations are allowed, and powerful influences buy access, a favour bank exists. Access to the minister gives powerful interests a major advantage. If somebody walks in off the street they can’t even get an audience with the minister. But if you’re a peak property group you can get an audience by clicking your fingers. There’s a difference. Access is rationed to the influential and the powerful, and to political donors. If people don’t get what they want from making political donations, then why do they give money to political parties?,” Buxton argued. 

It is ironic that the Hodgman Government believes that it is creating a long-term investor friendly environment with its reforms. It is doing the opposite. The competitive advantage of Tasmania’s built and natural heritage is put at risk and there will be no certainty in decision making. The minister can act capriciously, vindictively, and even whimsically in dealing with planning matters and there is little that can be done about it. 

This is what happens when ignorant politicians like Mr Hodgman and Mr Gutwein get lobbied by self-serving groups like the Property Council and its allies. 

They are sold a line about jobs and cranes in the sky and it does the trick. 

Meanwhile Tasmania’s urban, rural and wilderness environments are now in the hands of all powerful and secretive government officials. 

A disaster in the making. 

Greg Barns is a human rights lawyer. He has advised state and federal Liberal governments.

FW: MEDIA RELEASE: Community groups welcome Greens Planning Policy

PLANNING NEWS FEBRUARY 2018 MEDIA RELEASE: Community groups welcome Greens planning policy The Planning Matters Alliance Tasmania and Tasmanian Conservation Trust welcome the Greens party policy on planning, Planning for People. "The Greens have responded to the community's concerns that the Liberal government's planning reforms have gone too far, and addresses many of the fundamental concerns shared by our 58 member groups," said PMAT Coordinator Sophie Underwood. "PMAT welcomes the Greens planning policy to overhaul the proposed Tasmanian Planning Scheme (TPS), especially in regard to allowing the community to have a say over things they care about, including their backyards, and our natural and cultural heritage. "PMAT welcomes the Greens' commitment to reviewing the residential standards, which Liberals failed to fix during the development of the State Planning Provisions. Under the Liberals proposed TPS neighbourhood amenity and character, privacy and sunlight into our backyards and homes are not adequately protected and our rights to challenge inappropriate developments, through appeals, are very limited. "Under the Liberal's, all commercial developments in reserved land are classed as 'permitted' which means that there is no guarantee of public comment and no appeal rights. PMAT welcomes that the Greens planning policy, which guarantees public comment and appeal rights on developments on reserves and crown land. "PMAT welcomes the focus of the Greens planning policy on State Policies. State Policies are vital as they will help set a strategic vision for Tasmania. "When Tasmania's Resource Management and Planning System was introduced in 1993, State Policies were intended to form the backbone of that system, providing statewide guidance on a wide range of planning issues. The near absence of these policies (to date, only three have been finalised) has long been regarded as a missing piece in Tasmania's planning framework. "PMAT welcomes that the Greens have named up six new State Policies that they would develop. Labor has accepted the critical role that planning policies play, in setting objectives for the planning system that reflect the interests of the community as a whole and not just those of the development sector. Despite promising planning policies at the 2014 election the Liberal government has failed to deliver any.  "PMAT will be releasing a comprehensive score card, which will compare all political parties and where they stand on planning." "The Liberals want rampant development in National Parks and Reserves, while taking away the communities right to have a say and appeal rights. While Labor has expressed concern about the Liberal's policy, the Greens want to reverse it, giving communities a right to have a say and appeal rights and will prohibit developments in National Parks," said the Tasmanian Conservation Trust Director Peter McGlone. Hobart Not Highrise, through President Brian Corr, "commends the Greens Policy on highrise and major projects: that the proposed 'Major Projects' legislation be scrapped, that the Minister have no call-in powers and must take the advice of the Tasmanian Planning Commission, and that height limits be protected. These measures would go a long way towards protecting Hobart, its heritage, and its views." Please share with your members and networks. Kind regards, Sophie Co-ordinator Planning Matters Alliance Tasmania Authorised by: Sophie Underwood, 130 Davey Street, Hobart. DONATE Your donation allows us to build alliances with groups around Tasmania. The Planning Matters Alliance works to create a Tasmanian planning system that is fair and equal for all. DONATE NOW KEEP IN TOUCH F O L L O W on F A C E B O O K F O L L O W on T W I T T E R Copyright © 2018 Planning Matters Tasmania, All rights reserved. You are receiving this email because you opted in via our website. Our mailing address is: Planning Matters Tasmania Po Box 89 Hobart, Tas 7004 Australia Add us to your address book Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list.

The Natives Are Getting Angry And Angrier

The standards we walk past are the ones we accept … SADLY

Abstaining is one thing, but aggressively promoting and encouraging other Aldermen to support a Development is quite another. We elect Aldermen to give a balanced view, impartiality is critical, and the public interest is paramount. So when an Alderman has a pecuniary interest, that declaration and the duty to abstain is clear. If an Alderman is a good mate of someone employed by a party associated with an application, the duty to abstain is not there, but in this instance, the subject Alderman went beyond reason in speaking to the motion and did not indicate any preferential connection or knowledge. In a place such as Launceston, there are many close and personal connections. That is natural, normal and cannot be avoided. But for that reason, practicing independence and impartiality is so much more important and important to be seen to be practiced, not concealed. When the subject Alderman was approached and responded to FELO members, he should have indicated that he had already been approached or made aware of the situation by promoters (if this indeed had occurred). We are entitled to expect high standards from our Aldermen, but sadly we are becoming accustomed to that not being the case and we all too often accept that diminished standard. The poor standard shocks us when that standard is below our own. On the other side, we are criticised and sometimes some of us are penalised, humiliated and derided for standing up for our beliefs.......the P &F Executive have been shockers at that. Whilst we must never be tempted to lower ourselves to their appalling standards, it can be a human failing to do so.

Tomorrows Meeting: Call For Accountability!!

To All Aldermen, 

I wish to raise the issue of Agenda Item 8.6 on your next meeting Jan 22nd 2018. I am appalled that you have the arrogance to so brazenly attempt to further dismember proper and democratic communication with your rate payers by trying to further lock in your love of secrecy and drive for absolute power to the detriment of good governance.

You are all there to represent us, we are not mere pawns in your machinations and you show no respect for this fact. This agenda item is in my opinion, just another example of the quickly failing integrity and moral standing of this council and I remind you most strongly that we have an election coming up this year and attempts such as this to shut out and shut up the community, will be remembered most fervently.

If you have any integrity or strength of character left, if you can remember what your role is and should be, that is to both represent and include the community in caring for and progressing our city, particularly when it comes to such overriding changes as itemised in the despicable Agenda Item 8.6, then your only correct moral decision must be to vote it down. 

Thank you,

A Ratepayer

NB: Letter sent under separate cover to Aldermen

SHOCKING PR LAUNCESTON, SHOCKING!

A friend received this offer to win PRIZES. Sounds a bit like entering one of those old style Boys Town raffles in a Queensland shopping mall - tacky promotion which we doubt Prudence would approve of ?

Launceston's 2017 in review. 

 Happy new year XXX, 

1. Launceston's 2017 in review - prizes to be won!

Take our quiz for a chance to win some great summer prizes!

With 2017 done and dusted, we can look back on a huge year for Launceston.

Now it's time to test your knowledge of what the City of Launceston got up to throughout the year, and we have some great prizes up for grabs for those who take part in our 2017 City of Launceston quiz.

We'll draw the winners on Monday 22 January 2018.

 2. Cataract Gorge Playspace

Don't miss your chance to comment on this consultation!

 The City of Launceston is proposing the redevelopment of the Cataract Gorge playspace, and we need your help!

 We'd like to see the Cataract Gorge playground become a more accessible and contemporary natural play space, which can better withstand flood events.

 We have some questions we'd like to ask Launceston residents before we finalise the plans and lodge a Development Application for the project. 

This consultation closes on Thursday 25 January, 2018.

 Don't forget to register on Your Voice.Your Launceston. so that you can get involved in the decision making and help the City of Launceston to make better, more informed decisions.

 Kind regards, The Project Team

FACEbook FIND

WOW

AND THE STORY GOES

WOULD YOU BELIVE THIS?

Now we know why the Launceston City Council abstained from voting with the 25 councils against Gutwein's takeover of Taswater. 

Gutwein and his gang of proponents has given Launceston's combined stormwater-sewerage systems to Infrastructure Tasmania and his plan is to take over TasWater and sewerage in order to bypass any problems blocking the UTas development at Inveresk. 

But Gutweins' Bill was defeated 10-4 in the Legislative Council. So this sneaky deal has now all blown up in their face. 

Any development application will still come under scrutiny as per any other planning regulations. 

LCC were prepared to sell out the ratepayers and take away Taswater dividends of $5.5m - $180 a year each ratepayer. 

LCC has been complicit in all these backdoor deals! Gutwein now plans to make it an election issue. 

Don't let them sell your asset. Say no to their shonky deals! Vote against any party or candidate who supports the Liberal Government on this issue. "Walk a crooked mile..."

There are a few questions stemming from this: 

• Why did Launceston City Council abstain when 25 councils voted to retain Taswater and only 2-3 Councils voted for Govt takeover? 
• Whose idea was it to hand the Launceston system over to Infrastructure Tasmania? 
• Why did Launceston City Council hand the system over. 
• Who ordered the handover? 
• Did the aldermen vote for it? 

 Infrastructure Tas is part of State Growth Dept.

D Bowen

East Launceston Oval: Time to get serious!!

CLICK HERE FOR THE EXAMINER STORY

FOR MORE SEE FACEbook https://www.facebook.com/friendsofeastlauncestonoval/

CLICK HERE: Plan for new kindergarten Traffic concerns raised by residents BY HOLLY MONERY

Now for some questions for the Minister!

1. WHY are you unwilling to talk with community members about the potential loss of an historic green space?
2. WHY when so many cities in the world are trying to create, nurture and maintain green space and East Launceston has less than most other suburbs in Launceston, are you trying to destroy it? 
3. WHY as Minister for Education have you allowed the number of out of area enrolments at East Launceston Primary School to burgeon beyond the capacity of the school? 
4. WHY has the Department of Education ignored ABS census data in its regional planning putting pressure on an old suburb with limited infrastructure and with a declining kinder/primary population? 
5. WHY does the DoE view its priorities as greater than those of the broader community? 
6. WHY should local residents bear the burden of poor enrolment management? 
7. WHY as Minister for Education don’t you look at re zoning the area and redistribute the number of children attending East Launceston Primary School? 
8. WHY has the DoE adopted a reactive rather than strategic approach to the application of public funds and should this and the enrolment policies of ELPS be a matter of further enquiry? 
9. WHY are you taking away a 100 year legacy of Community space (and our children’s playground) just to save a few dollars? 
10. WHY did you refuse the offer to purchase the property in Oxford Street adjourning the school? It’s use for extra classrooms would be supported by all and obviate the danger children will be exposed to in extending the school over the road? 
11.  WHY did you not purchase 70 Abbott Street when it came on the market in July, sold for $390,000 and adjoined the school? 
12.  WHY when 1-3 Chant Street, came on the market, didn’t you purchase that? It sits on approximately 1,278m2 of land, comprised of a large brick building (formerly a church, church hall, lecture/meeting room) with kitchen and amenities. It also had a tennis court. This all sold for a very modest sum. .
13. WHY when you are so intent on building on this valuable green space, that you own, is the land swap with the Parents and Friends still going ahead? 
14.  WHY does the DoE think it is acceptable to pursue a 'deal' that could potentially see a P & F incorporated body lose (conservative estimate) $100,000? 
15. WHY haven’t you stated your intention with the land once you acquire it? 
16. WHY won’t the DoE say what they will do with the existing pavilion until after a land swap occurs, is this open and transparent governance? 
17.  WHY it is necessary to build a 7 vehicle car park on the recreation ground when the current car park does not fill and staff park on the other side of Mary Street in Raymond Street? 
18. WHY do the teachers have to have a car park right outside their door of work, is it Policy?

Leave your comments in the section provided below

Plan for new kindergarten Traffic concerns raised by residents BY HOLLY MONERY

Invermay Traffic

THE Invermay Traffic Investigation Report is due to be completed by the end of 2017 (The Examiner, November 14). 

It would seem the intersection of Lindsay and Goderich Streets which is adjacent to Charles Street Bridge is the worst performing intersection in Launceston, this is before any further development such as the Silo's complex and planned expansion in the area abounding Bunnings.

Will a similar study be initiated at the Tamar Bridge end of Lindsay Street? Not according to the City of Launceston Council at its meeting on November 21.

They intend to whack some traffic lights up and then hope that the area can cope with the 30,000-plus vehicle movements a day, this is before the UTAS campus is built, which will add another 15,000-plus.

Is the campus considered a poor cousin to an hotel development, it does seem that some intersections are more equal than others.

Ron Baines, Kings Meadows.

UPdate

UPward & ONward!!!

The Examiner And Launceston’s Hurtling Towards Oblivion

When the 'citizen's press' get going you find the answer to quite a few questions nobody seems to be, or seemed to have been, asking. Who was it who said "nobody is really paying attention, so …"?  An Alderman??  So, here's a selection of 'LETTERS TO THE EDITOR' that might just tell us something …. Well a thing or two anyway!!

Decisions, decisions

It could be argued that the City of Launceston has lost the plot.

All too often recently light-weight decisions, that should not have been made in the first place, are being revisited.

For example, the proposed relocation of St John Street's bus stop is being reworked.

And at the last meeting a car park at Inveresk was allocated to the university before a parking study was carried out, even though that study was on the council's work list, but at the time, was not started.

The pedestrian bridge was unanimously approved a few months back. At the time it was stated the original design was the only one that could meet all the design criteria.

Out of the blue two more designs were before the council. But only one could be voted on.

The preferred option was a lively design looking rather like the Batman Bridge. But it was ruled out because it was stated it would require another planning application taking some two weeks.

So the other option was approved, seven for, four against. Not convincing.

But what was the rush? Better to get it right? No, the debate was cut short by one alderman saying let's get it over with, make a decision now (I know – I was at the meeting).

Now in The Examiner (Monday, October 16) we read that the Brisbane Street Mall is to be redesigned.

That is after years of City Heart, public consultations and the current design documents already well underway, there is to be a myriad of improvements made including for events and activities, public art, shelter, security, and all to be attractive and inviting.

You could say just as well because it seems the original design must have been a real dud.

But this ad hoc decision making process is simply not good enough. Launceston needs consistent, logical, robust, intelligent decision making from its council.

Jim Dickenson, Launceston.

Invermay Should Be Abandoned

No matter who won the last Federal Election, blatant pork barrelling by both major parties, is the cause of the unfolding Invermay mess (Basil Fitch 27/10 refers).

We may never know what/whose agenda put the Lib/Labs up to it but we do know that tax and rate payers will pay for it! 

Due diligence, so called, has conveniently overlooked the inevitable seismic event; the best levees in the world are not immune. 

Launceston has an active  history of such events. Unfortunately LCC's independant risk management consultant is no longer with us but his legacy "..truth is beauty, beauty truth" remains.

Sincerely,  Ken Partridge (West Launceston)

Invermay abandoned

THE SES flood siren test on Thursday, October 5 brought back grim memories of 2016 flood on Invermay and Inveresk where evacuations, flood waters going through houses, ruining carpets, furniture, gardens, Inveresk Hotel closed for weeks along with Charles Street and Tamar Street bridges closed.

The tramsheds at proposed UTAS campus also affected with flood water.

The City of Launceston are responsible for all stormwater not TasWater.

It is incomprehensible, beggars belief and logic that mayor and aldermen, UTAS, Peter Gutwein, Liberal government, federal government would spend $260 million on a project knowing the 200 year history of 36 significant floods (SES) and numerous minor floods have occurred on a floodplain at Invermay and Inveresk.

Geoff Smedley's letter (The Examiner, October 5) "Woes of Launceston" are so correct.

Basil Fitch, South Launceston.

Woes of Launceston

IT HAS been pointed out that the relocation of the National Auto Museum of Tasmania has not been thought through in a manner befitting its value to the city.

One can only imagine the consequences of permanent sand and worse still, cement dust, in copious amounts plaguing the exhibits. I really can't imagine a worse scenario to be put upon a display of valuable cars. 

Surely this situation must have been looked into before such decisions were made, or is it just another big blunder in the whole mishmash of flustered planning that is taking place in Launceston today?

To have cars constantly exposed to such harmful elements would be a huge detriment to the ability of featuring valuable vehicles, and cause great harm to the museum's ability of frequent exhibit change. 

Launceston looks like it's about to undergo a torrid time, particularly with the up-and-coming university fiasco and the great changes that will bring to an already chaotic traffic flow situation.

There are so many other unforeseen problems that it's quite scary looking at these straight off the cuff decision being pushed through by a few rather than the true needs of Launceston. I am truly concerned at the thoughtless so-called progress that is happening at this time.

One has to worry about the tears that will undoubtedly follow this decision that seems so far from the real needs our little city, which is begging for real basic and urgent items of need.

Geoff Smedley, Launceston.

Launceston Show

CONGRATULATIONS to Lucy Stone (Sunday Examiner, October 22), for some very creative "outside the box" ideas for a possible re-vamped Launceston Show concept.

As for a future venue – the "old" University of Tasmania Newnham complex?

Margaret Hosford, Windermere.

Central Bus Stops

WHAT A sensible suggestion from City of Launceston mayor Albert van Zetten to move the northbound bus stop near Civic Square and the Town Hall in St John Street.  

It is then adjacent to the library, post office and Civic Square, which, as the mayor points out, is ideal in many ways.  

This site is removed from shops and the negative impact waiting passengers can have on these businesses. 

The redeveloped Civic Square will provide children's play areas, seating and a peaceful place for those waiting for buses.

It is hoped council will carefully consider this matter.

Dick James, Launceston.

Political Privilege

I, AND the majority of the community seem to be sick to death of lies being trundled out by politicians in Australia.

I suggest that the long held practice of parliamentary privilege be abolished and all politicians be made accountable for the words they utter.

The practice of filming and recording of all sittings would then mean that politicians would need to be able to verify their statements or be held liable for any untruths or slander uttered in the name of politics.

To the public, hearing the truth for once would be a God send.

Ken Terry, Bridport.

Pedestrians

AN ARTICLE (The Examiner, October 4) mentioned the council would give away half the circular carpark at Inveresk was an interesting statement: "It will allow for greater pedestrian movement."

Presumably this is after the dozens of drivers have parked somewhere else and then magically transformed into pedestrians.

Ron Baines, Kings Meadows.

LCC's Recalcitrance In Regard To QVMAG's Governance

Review of Governance Practices - Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery Establishment of Working Group <<< Click on the link to read the full post

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 2010

The following information is on the Launceston City Councils website but there is no opportunity there to leave a comment, critique, observation, whatever. It is posted here to allow that and for easy access. The information for intending working group applicants is as follows:

"Proudly owned and operated by the Launceston City Council, the Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery (QVMAG) is the largest regional museum in Australia and is the arts, cultural and creative heartbeat of Tasmania.

The Council is undertaking a review of the governance arrangements of the QVMAG. Following the review, the Council will establish an appropriate contemporary governance model which addresses QVMAG's obligations to the Council, State Government and community.

The Council wishes to form a working group of appropriately qualified people to research, evaluate and make recommendations to Council regarding the appropriate governance arrangements for the QVMAG.

The Working Group's considerations are anticipated to include, but not be limited to, the following:

1) Calling for public submissions on relevant matters;

2) Interviews with key stakeholders relating to the QVMAG, such as employees, and Friends and Foundation members;

3) An assessment of the current governance arrangements;

4) Discussion of alternative governance models, including the relationship with the City Council; and

5) A recommended governance model for QVMAG.

It is anticipated that the Working Group's recommendations will reflect both best practice in governance standard and the symbiotic relationship between the Launceston City Council and the QVMAG. .... AND still nothing has changed!  Go back and read the posts

CLICK HERE TO GO BACK AND READ ALL QVMAG POSTS OVER TIME