LETTER TO: Valuation and Local Government Rating Review Steering Committee

22 December 2010
Valuation and Local Government Rating Review Steering Committee
Local Government Division
GPO Box 123
HOBART TAS 7001

Dear Committee Members,
Re : Review of Government Valuation and Local Government Rating

We thank you for this opportunity to comment on the report titled Valuation and local government rating in Tasmania: a robust framework for the future dated October 2010 by Access Economics.

We note the press report published earlier this week in The Examiner Newspaper, advising that the closing date for submissions have been extended by a week. We are appreciative of this additional time to make comment on behalf of ratepayers in Tasmania.

At our meeting in Launceston with you and your advisor Mr Peter Pearce on 12th November, members of our Executive were pleased to congratulate your government on authorising this comprehensive report, which carries our Association's broad support. Whilst supporting the general thrust of the report, we argue for 50% of municipal charges to be made up of fixed charges for services.

There is no doubt that ratepayers and the community generally who contribute to rates through leases and rentals, expect local government to be a basic service provider, and that those services ought to be charged where possible on a system that reflects the user-pays principle. Particularly, residential households should not be penalised with a charging system that
reflects a 'wealth tax' for the cost of basic services.

The Terms of Reference provided to Access Economics, calls upon the consultant to assess... the effectiveness of (local government) rating processes.... and .... evaluate alternative models for ....... rating. It is therefore disappointing that there wasn't a broader investigation by Access Economics, of existing rating systems operating in Tasmania (such as the systems used by Georgetown, Devonport and Brighton) and for modelling on the impacts of any changes on a more representative range of local government areas (those modelled didn't include Launceston for instance, the largest municipality, or any of the municipalities currently using a fixed or
capped rating system).

Valuation and Local Government Rating Review Submission 2 Residential properties on 4% minimum rule after 2008-09 revaluation, were very badly affected by rate increases, and will continue to suffer these high cost penalties until the present systems are changed and returned to a rating cost akin to pre-2008 levels. These rate levels are not sustainable for such ratepayers, and whilst local government argue for their own income sustainability level, it is our very strongly-held view, that there is inadequate consideration given to ratepayer sustainability.

Councils must demonstrate more restraint with their budgets, so as to reduce rating requirements and to properly manage activities and budgets in a responsible manner to remain within budget provisions and to fully complete all works for which the budget was approved in the first place. There is a need for consultation with ratepayers BEFORE rates and budgets are proposed for council approval, and that this consultation be real and persuasive.

Budget savings must be returned to reserves and offset interest expenses and to minimise subsequent rate charges. Activities of Local Government must be restricted to more appropriate local government activities and not become to the benefit of a greater region. Local Government must not continue along a course of becoming 'minigovernment'.

Clearly the present use of AAV to assess municipal rates is inequitable and broadly unpopular, and must be abandoned. Whilst the impact of a land only based valuation system has not been fully modelled against AAV in a Local Government rating system context, it would appear from the investigation undertaken and presented, that this would be a fairer system for the second
50% of municipal charges to be directed to ratepayers.

We look forward to learning more about submissions you receive in relation to this process, and hope that we can continue to participate in a two-way dialogue to arrive at a new system for valuation and Local Government rating, at the earliest possible date.

Yours faithfully,
Lionel J. Morrell
President
Tasmanian Ratepayers Association Inc.

Copy Hon Bryan Green
Minister for Local Government.

Council first quarter budget shows favourable results

The Launceston City Council General Manager Robert Dobrzynski said "Overall the budget for the first quarter shows favourable results and if current trends continue we expect to come in $1.2 million ahead of budget at the end of the 2010/11 financial year. However, within this large scale operation there are areas which we will be focusing on improving immediately."

Mr Dobrzynski said "The Game On 2.0 exhibition at the Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery (QVMAG) was down $341,000 on budget estimates. Whilst this world premiere exhibition attracted around 23,000 locals and visitors and feedback received from the community was extremely positive, the Council recognised there were risks associated with taking on such a large scale exhibition. However, we believed it was important to bring this high profile event to Tasmania as it provided a unique experience for the entire community, especially our young people. Game On 2.0 attracted a different demographic to the QVMAG who otherwise may not have visited this facility, including increased visitor numbers to the Planetarium. Despite being timed to coincide with two AFL games to capitalise on increased visitor numbers to the region and being backed by an extensive marketing campaign, the exhibition didn't attract enough entrants to cover the costs."

Mr Dobrzynski said "Launceston Aquatic's estimated revenue budget targets were down by $99,981. Visitor entries did not meet projected levels for the first quarter. In addition, as this is a seasonal facility and is still relatively new, we don't have historic data on usage patterns; therefore the timing of revenue flow across the budget year is difficult to judge. As we come out of winter into the busy summer months, we are continuing to roll out initiatives to ensure we meet budget targets at the end of the financial year. A major review of operating costs for Launceston Aquatic is being undertaken with a specific focus on reducing gas and electricity costs."

Revenue at the Launceston Waste Centre was down $151,000. This was due to a reduction in the quantity of rubbish being deposited by garbage collection contractors. Council, the community and industry work actively to encourage recycling and minimise waste generation which means less waste is going to landfill. Whether this trend will be ongoing is being investigated.

Mr Dobrzynski said "These Council provided facilities are essential for the community. However with an emphasis by Council on reducing rubbish to landfill and maintaining a modern regional landfill site, costs to meet standards required are considerable. "We have strongly advocated to the State Government that there is not sufficient recognition within funding the Council receives that the City of Launceston provides a range of regional programs and facilities that are paid for by a small portion of the greater city population - Launceston City Council ratepayers. We have raised this when Cabinet met in Launceston in August this year and have already sought a further meeting with the State Treasurer and Grants Commission to discuss these issues."

Someone From Launceston City Council Should Attend This Seminar!

If there was ever an imperative for someone from Launceston City Council to send someone along to a seminar like this, well now would seem to be the time.

This notice is being circulated by fax at the moment and it seems safe to assume that Council will have received one. Let us see if we hear of anyone attending. Launceston's ratepayers would endorse that initiative.

New Director appointed for the Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery

Following an extensive recruitment process, the Launceston City Council has appointed Richard Mulvaney as Director of the Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery (QVMAG).

Mr Mulvaney has 25 years experience in cultural heritage and museum management roles and is currently the Chief Executive Officer of the New South Wales Rail Transport

Museum.

Notably, he was the inaugural Director of the Bradman Museum in Bowral, NSW which honours Sir Donald Bradman.

Launceston City Council General Manager Robert Dobrzynski said "I'm delighted to welcome Richard to the team. His extensive skills and experience will help lead the

QVMAG during this exciting time. There are a number of initiatives such as the realignment of the Inveresk site as a dedicated museum and the refurbishment of the Royal Park site that are in progress which he will take the lead role in.

"In particular, Richard's strong governance and relationship building skills will be essential assets as the QVMAG enters this next phase."

Mr Mulvaney's first day at the QVMAG will be on Monday 6 December 2010. He has been involved with museums for all his working life. After completing his Graduate Diploma in Museum Studies in Melbourne in 1983 he worked at the Australian War Memorial and Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies in Canberra and then Sovereign Hill in Ballarat.

In 1989 he became the founding director of the Bradman Museum in Bowral, NSW. Over the next 17 years he managed the development of a new cricket museum complex and related activities. In 2007 he worked at Museums & Galleries NSW as General Manager, Business & Finance.

Mr Mulvaney took up his position as CEO Rail Heritage Centre at Thirlmere to be closer to his home in the NSW Southern Highlands. Part of his role at Thirlmere is to supervise on behalf of the organisation the major upgrade of the site in association with RailCorp. The new Rail Heritage Centre opened recently and will include a new workshop, exhibition area and restoration of the historic railway precinct.

Mr Mulvan has been a member of Museums Australia for many years and has a deep appreciation of the contribution the state based service organisations such as Museums & Galleries NSW provides to museums and those who work in the industry. He served on the Council during the early 1990’s as President of MA NSW. He has also been an office bearer of the Illawarra Chapter of MA NSW and Chairman of the MA SIG sports heritage.

INFORMATION LINKS:

• Museums & Galleries NSW
• Macarthur Chronicle
• Vintage Trains at Thirlmere
• Thirlmere Railway Museum
• Bradman Foundation – Museum of Cricket
• Announcement of Director's Appointment – Examiner

Should there be a giant Christmas tree in Launceston and who should pay for it ?

Our Association is amused by calls by residents of Riverside, Exeter and Longford for a giant Christmas tree in Launceston and for Launceston City Council to pay for it.

Christmas has become very much a commercial promotion and the appropriate party to fund a giant tree is Cityprom, the very organisation for whom a special levy is collected for promoting the Launceston City Centre.

Cityprom Limited was formed in 1988 to promote and encourage development of the central business district of Launceston, including Christmas promotions and Christmas decorations. Ratepayers may well ask what they get from Cityprom for the money collected on their behalf ?

One wonders whether those people interviewed by The Examiner on Page 14, pay rates to Launceston City Council anyway ?

Max Plummer

Tasmanian Ratepayers Association Inc.

RATE REVIEW PROCESS

All of Tasmania's ratepayers should be interested in the joint State Government and local government Valuation and Local Government Rating Review. The review, which was initiated by the State Government in response to community and council concerns, is being informed by expert advice from an independent consultant, Access Economics.

Access Economics has now provided its final report, Valuation and local government rating in Tasmania: A robust framework for the future, to the steering committee leading the review. The report sets out Access Economics’ findings and makes some recommendations for change.

The report reflects the views of the independent consultants and does not necessarily reflect the views of the committee – nor of the State Government. Rather the report is an important component of the overall review and as such the report, together with council and public consultation, will inform the final recommendations of the steering committee. Ratepayers need yo be engaged with this process.

The report, together with a consultation paper, has now been released for public consultation. Consultation on the report closes on 17 December 2010. The report and consultation paper can be viewed – here

Responses to frequently asked questions about the Valuation and Local Government Rating Review can also be found in the report.

The steering committee leading the review will consider all feedback received on the report before making its own recommendations to the State Government in early 2011. Any changes proposed by the State Government as a result of the review will be further consulted on in 2011.

Submissions can be provided to the joint steering committee overseeing the review by email to:

lgd@dpac.tas.gov.au

or by mail to:

Valuation and Local Government Rating Review Steering Committee

Local Government Division

GPO Box 123

HOBART TAS 7001

Aldermanic Social Experimentation Must Stop

It is worthy of note that the youth center is an initiative of Northern Tasmania Development, itself a creature of Launceston City Council. So what we have is Launceston City Council, thorough its proxies, initiating and supporting non core activities which would never have got up had they gone to the floor of Council in the first place.

Northern Tasmania Development was initially established to encourage and assist economic development in the northern region, but given its poor performance in doing that, it has taken on community development and a grabbag of other 'busy work' activities as well. Council should ensure no more Launceston ratepayers funds go to the youth center, and while it is at it, also discontinue funding of Northern Tasmania Development.

If Launceston City Council ratepayers are to ever constrain the extraordinary, and largely unaccountable, expenditures on their behalf there needs to a paradigm shift embraced by Council Officers and the Aldermen alike. Do not hold your breath waiting.

Witney Small

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION: Cataract Gorge Environmental Flow

To: Harry Galea (précis )

It is understood that Council had asked Hydro to defer finalising their process until Council had managed to arrange the public meeting, so it is hoped that the delay doesn’t now hamper the process.

Other than the interest shown by its Cataract Gorge Advisory Committee, Council is way behind the ball on this issue having not taken much interest in it when originally invited by Hydro to its public forums last year.

Other parties who did, have put a lot of effort into dealing with the issue, and they must now be included in your process as a priority, not just as a matter of courtesy.

Accordingly, the following groups should be included by you without needing to respond to any public notice as you may intend.

Cataract Gorge Protection Association Inc.
Tasmanian Ratepayers Association Inc.
Heritage Protection Association (Tasmania) Inc.
LCC Cataract Gorge Advisory Committee

We look forward to hearing more about Council’s expectations and intentions, prior to any notice being published.

Regards,

Lionel

Cc: Robert Dobrzynski, Mayor van Zettan, Armitage & Norton plus Andrew Smith

LETTER TO COUNCIL: Remission of Rates for Residents of Retirement Villages

Dear Mayor and Alderman

City of Launceston

We refer to Agenda item 12.1 for the Meeting to be held on 18/10/10. The Tasmanian Ratepayers Association believes in equity for all residents and occupiers of land within the City of Launceston.

The residents of retirement villages and the like receive the benefits afforded to all other residents of the city.

Matters such as internal roads , lighting thereof, refuse collection and the like, are only part of the services that residents of this City require, and are taken into account with the State valuation system. There are many similar examples outside retirement villages where these services and others of a similar kind are paid for by occupants and not provided by the City.

Occupiers of retirement villages are no less wealthy than many other occupiers of rental properties who inter alia contribute to rating costs as part of rental/lease arrangements. There are many residents in this City who are struggling to meet their daily living expenses includingpayment of municipal rates, and are far worse off than many residents of retirement villages.There are residents of this city, even those who are property owners, who are unable to afford a move to a retirement village.

Retirement village residents are commonly subsidised either by capital works or operational expenses by government and charitable bodies. Whilst there is a small pensioner remission available to ordinary pensioner/ratepayers, that level of support does not equate to what is provided to residents of retirement villages. The ordinary resident/ratepayer of the city have also worked hard and paid taxes and rates for all of their lives. They are certainly no different to the nature and character of the apparent “special” residents of retirement villages. As Aldermen you are elected to represent the interests of all ratepayers, please fulfil your duties in that regard.

There is an apparent view from many people in the community, that many people living in some of the more recently constructed retirement villages are more akin to a social elite, and it is difficult to not support this view when one learns what these residents pay to become a resident of these well-appointed retirement villages.

Of course Councillors have been somewhat intimidated by the aggressive opposition by this visibly mobile and organised groups of residents, however, that spectre of opponents ought not persuade Councillors to abandon or neglect the needs and sorry plight of other, less organised and less able ratepayer and individuals resident within the city.

Please do not support the remission of rates for residents of retirement villages.

Yours sincerely,

Lionel Morrell
President
Tasmanian Ratepayers Association Inc
Tel 0428 137 050

LETTER TO COUNCIL: LCC Alderman Ball's Urgent Motion

Dear Mayor and Alderman,

City of Launceston.

The Examiner (P13 16/10/10) reports that Ald Jeremy Ball has rushed through a motion for Monday’s meeting promoting financial support to keep Youth on Paterson financially viable for 12 months whilst it sources other funding options.

There is NOTHING on Council’s website providing any information in relation to this motion. The Tasmanian Ratepayers Association DOES NOT SUPPORT Local Government funding for this purpose. Responsibility for this area of community activity is within the realm of State and Federal Governments.

Whilst we agree that Youth on Paterson provides a valuable and worthy service to the community, we do not understand from the press article – being the only information made available – why the previous funding arrangements have not been continued, and why, since this has apparently been known since June 2010, that it is being presented without notice.
Launceston Ratepayers are already funding activities and services to residents that live beyond the municipal boundaries of the City, and many ratepayers are struggling to pay the present rates and costs of other essential living services.

There is no provision in Council’s budget for this activity.

Should Alderman wish to support charitable activities of this kind, then they are free to do so and can choose to apply their aldermanic and mayoral allowances to that purpose.

Please do not provide financial support to this activity.

Yours sincerely,
Lionel Morrell
President
Tasmanian Ratepayers Association Inc.
Tel 0428 137 050

EXAMINER ARTICLE: Fears for youth centre future 16 Oct 10 | THE Launceston City Council will be asked to help finance the Youth on Paterson centre to prevent its imminent closure. Alderman Jeremy Ball rushed through a last-minute motion for the agenda for Monday's council meeting, seeking council ... read more here

Review of Governance Practices - Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery Establishment of Working Group

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.

The newly formed governance arrangements, in conjunction with a new Director, will guide the vision and strategy of the QVMAG as it moves through an exciting multi-million dollar redevelopment at both its Inveresk and Royal Park sites. Further key aspects include ensuring that QVMAG's programs engage the community and are at the forefront of innovation and contemporary cultural practice while providing best value to Council and other stakeholders.

Objectives of the review
The Council has established the following objectives for the Working Group tasked to research, evaluate and make recommendations to Council upon the appropriate governance arrangements for the QVMAG.

Establish a governance framework at QVMAG which gives carriage to the Council's statutory responsibilities and community obligations, and which appropriately addresses the following key areas:

• Stewardship and security of collections
• Ethical and accountable management
• Development and delivery upon the QVMAG Strategic Plan
• Accountability reporting to stakeholders
• Contemporary practice in museum and art gallery processes and practices
• A method of practice that promotes engagement and consultative process
• The symbiotic relationship between the Launceston City Council and the QVMAG

Timelines for the review
It is anticipated that the Working Group will report to the Council with its recommendations by 1 March 2011. The Launceston City Council will through the General Manager provide such resources as necessary to facilitate the activities of the Working Group.

Call for nominations
Nominations for the QVMAG Governance Working Group are invited from appropriately qualified people. Applications should include details of experience and qualifications and further information which promotes the credentials of the applicant.

Applications marked QVMAG Governance Working Group should be received by close of business on Friday 8 October 2010 and addressed to:

General Manager
Launceston City Council
P.O Box 396
Launceston, Tasmania 7250

Further enquiries should be directed to the General Manager's Office on 03 6323 3104 or by email to kym.corfield@launceston.tas.gov.au

Robert Dobrzynski
General Manager"

The General Manager has also provided the following contextual information to help put the work of the "Working Group" in context:

"Whilst QVMAG is essentially a Department of the Launceston City Council and predominantly recurrent and capital funded from the City's annual budget (with funding support from the State Government), in practice, the specialised nature of activities at QVMAG have led to a gradual but continuing separation of activities of the City as a local government and QVMAG.

Whilst QVMAG has a Friends Group, this does not provide a governance function. So the current arrangement sees the Launceston City Council and below it the QVMAG. The intercession is the position of Director QVMAG.

The objective is to establish a governance structure that connects QVMAG and the City Council from a technical policy, due diligence in process and practice and performance accountability perspective, effected operationally through the Director.

The QVMAG governance model, whilst contemporary, should also bear relevance to the fact that QVMAG is not a creature of the State Government, and therefore the legislative and trustee models that various State and Territory Governments have established may not be appropriate as a direct translation to QVMAG. However, the many examples of good Museum and Art Gallery governance and policy practice that exist should provide a fertile ground of consideration to the working group, even if in an adapted form."

CLICK HERE TO CONFIRM THIS INFORMATION ON COUNCIL'S SITE

MUSEUM PROBLEMS

Too many specimens, not enough people at museum
Nicky Phillips September 2, 2010

"MORE than a decade after thousands of specimens were stolen from the Australian Museum the NSW Auditor-General has criticised the current management of its collection.

A performance review found much of the museum's 18 million-piece collection, valued at more than $750 million, was not catalogued and many items could not be located by anyone but the curator or museum staff. ''[This] weakens the museum's ability to provide information on its collection. It weakens its ability to exercise effective control over the objects in its care,'' the Auditor-General, Peter Achterstraat, said. ... While the Auditor-General's report, released yesterday, did not assess the museum's security, it found it did not conduct regular inventories of its collection to ensure items still existed ... Thousands of zoological specimens were stolen from the museum by a former employee ... An Independent Commission Against Corruption investigation into the thefts, which included animal skulls, birds and a stuffed lion, found the museum's inventory was incomplete and its security and collection management practices inadequate."

Well reading this in Launceston poses a few questions. The QVMAG's last Director was at the Australian Museum and presumably knew all about this kind of problem. The QVMAG's collection are apparently worth something like $250 Million, so what security is in place there. And in what state is the QVMAG's record keeping? We should not be expecting answers to questions like that anytime soon. The elephant in the room is probably what this SMH story might be telling us. Would an Auditor-General's report on the QVMAG tell us anything that we do not want to know?

POSITION VACANT ADVERTISEMENT: Museum Director QVMAG Launceston

Letters to the Editor – Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery

The two letters in today’s Examiner are an interesting breaking of the silence in regard to the issues surrounding the QVMAG, the ratepayers’ payout of the Director’s contract plus Council’s management and governance of the museum.

The Aldermen’s resolve, having read and considered the Sage Report, to keep its sensitive and its potentially harmful contents confidential is to be congratulated.

It’s a decision that should be supported by any reasonable thinking person.

The real question that needs to be asked is where to from here given that the QVMAG is one of Tasmania’s cultural treasures and that there is a great deal at stake.

Apart from making a well-meaning but relatively ambiguous commitment to set up a “working group” to ” research, evaluate and make recommendations regarding [QVMAG] governance” nothing more has been heard.

Like commitments have been made in the past and have sunk without trace.

Largely this is why the QVMAG is costing Launceston’s ratepayers so much in their rates, not to mention the lost and missed opportunities.

Ray Norman
Trevallyn

PUBLIC MEETING: Call For QVMAG Enquiry

It is well beyond time that there was some kind of enquiry into the goings on at the QVMAG. First up, well not quite, the Director is dismissed in a cloud of innuendo and the only news appearing in the Examiner is essentially the same story run in a dozen different ways.

Secondly, the General Manager seems to have lost perspective in regard to due process and is now rushing to appoint a new director without consultation with the Aldermen it seems. It is about time that there was something reported to the ratepayers who pay his salary. The title 'Public Servant' once meant something. Now it seems that it is the public who serve these people and it is costing us a motza in rates. A $100 plus for the museum in our rates.

If people actually turn up to this meeting there may be a chance to find something out. But it is a bit extreme to have to go to this kind of lengths to get information.

CLICK HERE TO GO TO MUSEUM MUGGING WEBSITE
•
CLICK HERE TO GO TO MUSEUM MUGGING TWITTER SITE

The Museum Saga

With the museum saga moving on a notch, and the "search for a museum boss" now in progress, those who actually wind up paying her/his salary have been left right out of the process yet again. What we see here is yet another public consultation process by edict and media release – in essence a repeat performance with past failures remaining in the script.

The Aldermen at Launceston City Council seem to be sticking like glues to the assertion that the museum is owned and operated by Council. It is certainly operated by the Council but its "ownership" is open to debate . The collections are not by necessity owned by the Council. It is more realistic to understand them as being held in trust on behalf of Tasmanians and a range of others with something invested in these collections – intellectual property plus cultural property and capital in particular.

Given all that is invested in the QVMAG, the aspirations and understandings – self-serving understandings(?) – of unrepresentative bureaucrats need to be considered with great caution. Even if it hasn't been mentioned yet, world's best practice is a laudable aspiration but the question that needs to be asked is who is making what judgements and on whose behalf.

Since New Zealand/Aotearoa has been sited in a previous post, in the establishment of Te Papa’s, New Zealand's National Museum, some new benchmarks in museum practice have been established – and especially so in regard to museum governance. The bicultural cum cultural diversity paradigm that New Zealand's cultural institutions are now operated within provide exemplars worth emulating and well worth taking advice from ... click here to visit Te Papa online

Two Museum Stories With A Launceston Tinge

Many people will have missed these stories but they are rather serendipitous for Launceston – and especially for Launceston now. What cannot fail to catch your attention is that the first story – the one to do the stolen painting – points to the institution’s endemic, and serial, governance and management failures and weaknesses. So we imagined that us Lonnyites were alone with the smell of bureaucratic recalcitrance in the air near the museum .... click here to read the story

One might imagine that someone in Cairo might have been saying the day before the robbery happened that it couldn’t. Then again, perhaps it has elsewhere in the museum and nobody has noticed yet. Or perhaps, maybe it has and nobody is talking about it. Its anybody’s guess really.

Its an odds on bet that there is quite a bit blame shifting going on at the Khalil Museum as we speak. One wonders what they do to delinquent bureaucrats in Egypt? Does Sharia law kick in for misdemeanors like this? Clearly not thus far it would seem.

But it doesn’t stop there, across the ditch in NZ, and Auckland specifically, there is another story that smells much more like home and that is the kind of salutary read we are unlikely to get if we buy The Examiner. It certainly is rich pickings out there online today!

Both stories tell Launcestonians that they are not alone. Reading between the lines – even though we shouldn't do that – it seems the museum world reeks as much with intellectual myopia and bureaucratic entropy as can be found in public administration almost anywhere.

In shareholder world those found wanting tend to move on quite quickly. Its always a bit of worry when you find a functionary that's been round the block a couple of times.

Petar Hill

PUBLIC MEETING: Penquite Road Tuesday August 17 2010

Click on the map to access The Penquite Rd. Traffic Management Works Background Paper

The residents impacted upon by Penquite Road met last night and held Launceston City Council to account. It is a sad state of affairs when this kind of action is required, that is calling upon Aldermen and officers to account for their actions – and sometimes their inaction.

If there had been adequate community consultation this meeting would never have happened. If a narrow band of opinion on Council hadn't dogmatically pushed an idea as some kind of one size fits all solution to everything, well this meeting would not have been needed.

For far too long Launcestonians have had second rate decision making imposed upon them. The 'insertion' of bikeways into a narrow carriageway is just a recent example. Ratepayers and residents are used to being fobbed off by Council's officers but it seems that they are finally getting tired of it.

So too it seems are some Aldermen getting both wary and weary of the contention they are left with. Ald. Dean noticeably arrived late and left early, perhaps in order to avoid engagement with his constituents presumably. Also, a couple of other Aldermen left early and presumably because it was unlikely that an bouquets were going to be handed out.

In a nutshell the meeting was raucous and rowdy but it eventually called for a total review of the bikeway and other carriageway works to ensure that they meet community expectations and safety standards.

In addition, the Easter n bypass question was raised yet again since it was first raised in the 1960s.

The real lesson to be learned from this meeting is that when community consultation is taken seriously Council gets to find out what the community's concerns really are. Perhaps, there is an increasing appetite for community consultation. If Council embraces community consultation with more enthusiasm there is not only money to be saved but other benefits to be won as well.

In regard to Penquite Road, TRA is expecting a response from Mr Harry Galea, Director of Infrastructure Services, in the next few days. So watch this space.

MEDIA RELEASE: Disgruntled Cataract Gorge stakeholders dissatisfied with Hydro Tasmania's performance

Letters to the Editor –Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery

A STRATEGIC PLAN: The Mayor said in Saturday’s Examiner that he is going to be careful with the Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery. How can Launceston’s ratepayers believe that in the light of recent events?

To lose a Museum Director in a cloud of serious accusations and contentious counterclaims is very careless. The Mayor must have known what was going on if these accusations were being progressed and processed for as long as it seems they have been. If he did not know, then why not?

If he was to claim that this kind of thing is handled by management, well that does not stack up. Either Council’s management is keeping him in the dark, or he has asked to be, or is happy enough to be oblivious to this kind of thing.

The Mayor receives a very good salary to represent the people of Launceston who have put their trust in him. On this occasion it seems that he has failed them and seriously. The dismissal of the museum’s director is going to cost the people of Launceston not only a lot of money but there will also be a loss of service. It will also impact upon Launceston’s rates at least as much as the Mayoral salary does. Perhaps he should think about that and get back to ratepayers!

Saying that he supported the General Manager’s “proposal to have a strategic plan” begs some questions:
• Isn’t there a current strategic plan already?
• If there is not then why not?
• If not, why with his business background, and ratepayer’s interests at heart, had he not ensured that there was one?
• If there isn’t a strategic plan for the museum then how can the council justify levying ratepayers for the museum’s operation?
• Likewise, if there isn’t a strategic plan, one that is written down, that reflects the museum’s current operation then how could he sanction the expenditure of millions of dollars currently being spent at the Royal Park building and a range of other significant expenditures within the institution?

The questions posed here might be quite wrong and there probably is a strategic plan in the Mayor’s bottom draw somewhere. If there is, will he please show it to us because we would like to do a reality check on how Council is spending our money. And no, in due course will not be good enough. If there is or isn’t a plan Launceston’s ratepayers deserve to know either way.

Francis Lee
Waverly

GOVERNANCE & MANAGEMENT FAILURES: The Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery is one of Launceston’s, indeed Tasmania’s, most precious cultural assets. It holds within its collections significant exemplars of Tasmania’s heritage and cultural property – Aboriginal and European.

The lamentable situation the museum currently finds itself in is entirely due to weaknesses and failures in Launceston City Council’s governance and management of the QVMAG.

Sadly it seems that Mr. Filmer-Sankey has been as much a victim of the failures as he may have been a part of them.

On average, every ratepayer has been investing well over $100 per annum in the QVMAG for quite a while. The State government has also been contributing to recurrent expenditure and most recently capital expenditure as well.

In regard to the museum, LCC has not been functionally accountable to the museum’s Community of Ownership and Interest for some time. So I agree with the Collenettes in their letter [in the Examiner], the museum is indeed under considerable threat and there is a great deal at risk.

The time is upon us when all the weaknesses and failures need to be addressed by Council.

Ray Norman
Trevallyn

A MUSEUM IN CRISIS _ A Museum At Home With Itself

This notice slipped quietly into a Launceston INBOX a day or so ago and not so surprisingly there is much to learn from it. Yes Auckland is somewhat larger than any city in Tasmania, nonetheless Auckland's museum looks like it might be able to teach us a thing or two about a thing or two.

The first thing that is very noticeable about the language in this notice is that it is setting out to engage Aucklanders in the process of renewing "their museum". Launcestonians have not been exposed to the same welcoming experience of late. Generally they have been kept pretty much in the dark and treated like mushrooms even if they provide a large slice of the QVMAG's funding.

This week Launcestonians have opened their morning papers to discover that THEIR MUSEUM has lost its director and apparently there have been other losses as well. With so many losses it is hard to work out if this is down to fate or carelessness. Whatever, the buck stops with the Aldermen!

The Auckland Museum is an interesting institution that engages with its Communities of Ownership and Interest. One wonders if any time soon that will be an experience Launcestonians can boast about given all of this week's events.

Graffiti fines backlash

Graffiti fines backlash BRIAN WARD | August 11, 2010 12.01am

GLENORCHY residents have slammed a plan to sting landowners who don't remove graffiti from their properties.

Glenorchy City Council was reeling yesterday after a public backlash over proposed graffiti bylaws.

The Mercury website was bombarded with comments from readers who were disgusted by the proposed fines, many who couldn't understand the need for them.

Glenorchy aldermen were also overwhelmed with the response from the community yesterday, which viewed the plan as extreme.

Under the proposed bylaws, property owners and occupants could be fined up to $220 if they fail to remove graffiti on their property from public view..... read more here

So you do not live in Glenorchy and you think this doesn't impact upon you? Well do we have some news for you. A while back the Gestapo at Launceston City Council were proposing to fine people if the didn't take their rubbish bins in on time. They were also proposing to fine people who failed to put their rubbish and recycling bins 1 meter apart. In every bureaucracy there is some little guy who wants to be a bigger one.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
Thomas Jefferson

State Government Review of Valuation and Rating Models

TRA has been in touch with Matthew Sullivan at the Department of Premier and Cabinet to enquire about the opportunities available to have some input into this process being initiated by Bryan Green MP – Minister for Local Government. Click here for more information

Once upon a time we might have been able to say that making an input into a process like this is something our Councils should do on our behalf. Maybe they should be involved but we can bet on one thing, their input is more than likely something that will happen without ratepayer input/consultation. So if we are concerned, and we should be, we need to be proactive.

Rather than roll over and play dumb, ratepayers should be working together to come up with ways in which they think that the valuations we pay rates on are more realistic – and thus the rating model used to calculate rates more sustainable.

TRA recommends that anyone, or any group, with an interest in this subject should now:
• Register their interest in making a contribution to the review
• Form some discussion groups to test their ideas on other ratepayers
• Talk to their Councillors/Aldermen and declare their interest to them and ensure that they play an active part in this review process.

TRA has registered its interest but we may be overlooked when the time comes but this will be less likely if others do so as well. This looks like a chance to get a more equitable rating system , so lets make the most of it.

To see the Governments terms of reference for the review and independent analysis can be found by CLICKING HERE

Further information: Matthew Sullivan 0407 816 462

Matthew Sullivan eMAIL: matthew.sullivan@dpac.tas.gov.au

Trouble at the QVMAG

Launceston's ratepayers pay, and have been paying for a long time, for the museum. If there are management failures at the museum then it is most likely down to the Aldermen looking the other way. If as Alderman Norton says, the director was handed a poisoned chalice, who poisoned it?

If there were management problems as far back as it seems, who is that down to? It seems that if the museum's director finds himself in an untenable position there is quite a bit to be examined. Will the Mayor and Council have the appetite to initiate an investigation that is likely to find them wanting?

Watch this space. We'll be watching this one to ensure that ratepayers are well represented and are not handed a horrendous bill for a failure. The Aldermen and managers are underwritten by the ratepayers who in the end always carry the can. In part at least this is why Launceston's ratepayers are paying more rates than they need to.

Remember the additional $500,000(?) budget blowout at the Aquatic Centre, on top of the budgeted $400,000 operating loss. And, of course who could forget the $30,000 wastefully spent on the Centre's opening without reference to the Aldermen. That is the kind of benchmark ratepayers would prefer wasn't used. In these hard times ratepayers are increasingly less able to pay.


Subsequent Press of Interest – Please click on a heading

• 'Duty of care' the issue at museum BY ALISON ANDREWS Examiner: 11 Aug, 2010 08:34 AM
• Sweetnam to take over responsibility 11 Aug, 2010 12:00 AM
• THE BACKGROUND Examiner 11 Aug 10 | PATRICK Filmer-Sankey, 54, became director of the Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery on December 4, 2006. His appointment came just five months after the Launceston City Council appointed Victorian local government administrator Frank Dixon
• Museum drama must be resolved EDITORIAL Examiner 11 Aug 10 | THE Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery is a nationally recognised and respected institution with a distinguished history dating back to 1891. Launceston has two museum sites - at Royal Park and at Inveresk - and both showcase our...
• Museum boss to pursue his own complaint Examiner 11 Aug 10 | LAUNCESTON museum chief Patrick Filmer-Sankey will revise and resubmit code of conduct complaints against three city aldermen. Mr Filmer-Sankey yesterday said that he had taken advice from Mayor Albert van Zetten that his original complaints had ...
  
• Museum chief expects to be sacked – BY ALISON ANDREWS CHIEF REPORTER Examiner: 10 Aug, 2010 08:24 AM

Are You suffering From Election Irrelevance Syndrome?

If you are up for some edifying commentaries this site is worth reading. Apparently it is written from Penny Wong's office or somewhere like that ...click here to read more

How to change the world: RECOMMENDED READING

Dorothy from the Midlands writes to tell us about this "change technique." Well it is worth a look and I would go so far as to say that every Alderman and Councillor in Tasmania should read this 12 page pamphlet. However, as Dorothy says "ratepayers trying to get through to their [elected representative] will find this useful" too!

Yes, Dorothy it may well be useful but some of our representatives believe they have been elected to make decisions and NOT to listen to their constituency on every issue that comes up for them. It is hard to have a productive conversation with them but it is worth trying. But we should not tar all our representatives with the same brush as there are quite a few who take their 'representation' seriously.

Then there are the unelected managers. Some of them believe that they have all the answers so listening to ratepayers and residents is often seen as a waste of their time. Nonetheless this pamphlet could be useful even in having a productive conversation with such an officer.

The website where you download this paper from is an interesting one and Les Robinson the author has some interesting things to say about economic rationalism. In fact he gives us "Eight tools to fight economic rationalism" with! Take a look, its worth the effort.