RATEPAYERS ARE BEING DONE OVER AND WHO IS WATCHING?

•

It’s all getting a bit much. Ratepayers are at the mercy of Local Government bureaucrats and it seems that for a lot of the time they are quite unaware of the extent of it. It is these Local Govt. types who set the rates to meet their operational needs, even if the Aldermen sign off on them.

Local Govt. management has a vested interest in maintaining the status quo at least, or better still, increasing the operational spend, as typically there are positive spin-offs for senior staff. These may come in the form of salary increases related to increases in responsibility measured against the size of the spend officers have responsibility for. And that's just the start.

In this kind of environment ratepayers typically become hapless bystanders as the imposts on their available incomes grow. Oftentimes, these imposts grow exponentially, unreasonably and unsustainably. Rates are payments for service NOT a 'Wealth Tax'! Aside from ratepayers’ capacity to pay is the issue of service outputs commensurate with ratepayers' inputs/investment.

On top of this some Councils, Launceston being one, where there are imposts on ratepayers that are attributable to ‘non-core’ service provision. There is scope for considerable debate as to the extent to which some of these things are indeed ‘non-core’. That's another story.

Nevertheless, it is probably time that ratepayers started to demonstrate their dissatisfaction rather than complacently going along with these imposts that grow exponentially and as often as not in a hidden way and increased by subterfuge.

It is also time to hold those accountable to account – Aldermen & Councillors – and make representations to them to hold their – Council's & ratepayers' – officers to account. The elected representatives can always be held to account at the next election but staff can only be accountable at the insistence of elected representatives. It's time that they did so.

What are ratepayers looking for?

Well the delivery of some kind of appropriate dividend, social, cultural, whatever, commensurate with their investment in non-core services would be something worth looking at.

What might be done?

One option might well be for ratepayers to withhold that part of their rates attributable to non-core services until their elected representatives are proactively, and demonstrably, providing accountability to ratepayers and holding officers accountable.

How might this be done?

It has been suggested that one way might be for a Trust Account be established to enable ratepayers to deposit their contribution to ‘non-core’ service provision as an alternative to handing it directly to Council. These funds could be released to the Mayor conditional upon there being an undertaking to proactively address accountability issues.

Imagine a newspaper story with a photograph of ratepayers in a queue at a bank depositing their ‘non-core’ rate contribution into a Trust Account.

It is an interesting thought!

TIME FOR A REALITY CHECK AT LAUNCESTON CITY COUNCIL

Click on the image to enlarge

At Launceston City Council’s 2010 Annual General Meeting on 6 December the city’s GM Robert Dobrzynski did offered up Powerpoint presentation where, essentially, he outlined his vision for the city’s and the administration of it.

Noteably, he made a commitment that was somewhat surprising in that he undertook to consult with the community regarding the preparation and approval of the city’s budgets and specifically for 2011/12. To those in attendance this was something new!

His buzz words were all to do with “community consultation, empowerment of the community, engaging with the community through steering committees/advisory groups/targeted resident groups/face to face meetings with existing groups”.

Yes this all sounded rather impressive and there was an air of optimism in the room. So much so that some of the questions some people in the room had at the ready were not asked. Given that what seemed to be Launceston City Council’s new found, and conciliatory, attitude towards ‘the ratepayers’ it seemed that asking ‘difficult questions’ would look a tad cherlish.

That was December 6 2010! However, looking back from now to then, there is little evidence of any this ‘promise’ being delivered upon. Sadly, what seems to have continued is the same kind and level of confrontation between the city’s administrators and ratepayers as has typically been the case in Launceston.

It is just possible that ratepayers’ anxieties that their concerns and consideration are as much outside the management loop as ever they were.

From the Tasmanian Ratepayers Association viewpoint, there certainly haven’t been any approaches made from LCC. What's more, the association’s submissions continue to be met with same level of contempt as ever. Recently this was evidenced in regard to the Lindsay Street Road corridor concept, where LCC officers and the LCC Flood Authority personnel were plain downright rude and offensive. Yes, this is the kind of consultation process that ratepayers' are all too familiar with.

Note the GM’s slide dealing with PLANNING REVIEW OF TRANSPORT OPTIONS, for instance. If we were now to think about that as hollow rhetoric we might well be excused. Interestingly, the Jan Geale report was due in January, but that month has already been and gone. If there were ever any benckmarks for performance indication, this might be one and one that raises the prospect that these things are as they say "discretionary".

The Examiner’s story, 11 February, regarding losses from city ‘’Attractions” is interesting, in that they are clearly not attractive enough!! Launceston’s hapless ratepayers keep on hearing about the bad news in dribs and drabs.

For instance, the further reductions in parking arrangements for Launceston Aquatic is further evidence that:

• Parking is not being required;
• There aren’t enough customers visiting the Centre; and
• All of the matters raised by the representors at the Aquatic Centre's Appeal Hearing concerning the sustainability issues relative to this project ... well it turns that they were on the button.

The fact that the the ratepayers' association was not allowed to present the expert opinion in documented evidence that the LCC figures for attendances couldn’t be achieved is worth remembering. It turns out that 'the experts' were correct and the figures just get worse and worse.

If there was an open journalistic review of Launceston City Council’s promises, its budgeting and its ability to achieve positive outcomes for its ratepayers, goodness knows what might come to light.

The Tasmanian Ratepayers Association has long argued that LCC doesn’t manage and conduct its business properly, and we have produced copious amounts of evidence and data to support this view.

The Commonwealth Government is presently seeking comment on a paper that Northern Tasmania’s councils could be consolidated under a national urban policy it is developing. A discussion paper released in December, says the policy aims to make Australia’s largest 18 cities “more productive, sustainable and livable”.

With a population of 105,445 in 2009, Launceston is ranked the 17th largest city in terms of population.

The paper says multiple councils in smaller regional cities like Wollongong and Newcastle and Launceston “present a major challenge to the effective management of cities”.

Minister Anthony Albanese said the final version of the policy would be a blueprint to reduce people’s dependency on cars, develop high quality public transport, reduce cities’ carbon footprint and improve urban planning.

What is LCC doing about responding to this opportunity ?

Launcestonians have heard nothing from LCC promoting public interest and awareness in contributing to this process. Perhaps there are people at Town Hall who have an interest in maintaining the status quo. What might they be worried about? Yet all the while Launceston is dealing with strategies, plans, bikeways, urban improvements, infrastructure upgrades, planning schemes, and so on and so on.

• Is the community being engaged in “community consultation Processes”?
• Is the community being “empowered”?
• Is LCC “engaging with the community through steering committees/advisory groups/targeted resident groups/face to face meetings with existing groups”?

We do not see the evidence.

So, we must say that we do not think so!

Petar Hill & Simber Albertson

OMINOUS SIGNS OF YET MORE RATE INCREASES IN THE AIR IN LAUNCESTON

In today’s Examiner Alison Andrews paints a pretty bleak picture in respect to Launceston ratepayers' lot. The picture seems to get bleaker and as each day passes … click here to make a link to Alison’s article

The city's GM is curiously absent in this story. Possibly he is trying to work out what spin he can put on the news that costs seem to be running away.

Two of the city’s sporting and recreation facilities, the Aquatic Centre and Aurora Stadium, that Alison Andrews curiously calls “attractions”, are, it seems, failing to be just that given their non-performance and the losses they are generating.

$415K in three months is big bickies in anyone’s book! Lumped on top of the $410K budget overrun for the QVMAG, well Lonnie’s ratepayers had better start bracing themselves for a rates increase that will most likely be predicated on the needs to “balance the books” and/or “maintain service levels” or some other weasel words equal to the bureaucratic tosh ratepayers keep on being fed at times like this.

If the good aldermen give this kind of non-performance a tick they will be ignoring all the signals that they need to get proactive, and now. They must take back the reins and ensure that ratepayers do not continue to be relentlessly slugged. If they don’t, no doubt we will remember them in October.

Launceston City Council seems to be plagued with these ubiquitous “cost over runs”. Also, it is rumoured that LCC is awash with fly-in consultants. If this rumour has any veracity, who is doing whose work for whom and at what/whose cost?

The only people being penalised in all this are the hapless ratepayers, not the perpetrators of ‘lost plots’ who are, it seems, mindlessly allowing bad management practice to slip under the wire, and without penalty to anyone except ratepayers by all accounts.

Looking at the size of some these losses they begin to look like the size of some of the city’s high fliers’ salaries in excess of a factor of two. For the GM that’s probably only a factor of one point something but there you go. However, always remember that these figures are only quarterly and the salaries are annual.

Launceston’s ratepayers were slugged with a rate increase this year even if the level of services LCC are delivering was reduced with water reticulation moving away from Council.

And as for the QVMAG high farce being administered by the GM, well it continues to astound. $777K for an outsourced exhibition is way out of line albeit that it was the previous GM, and apparently the aldermen as well, who gave that one a big tick. The sad thing about this show is that it was planned in the wake of large staff cuts and delivered employment opportunities to people elsewhere not to mention the losses now being exposed at home. How was this allowed to happen?

Yes it seems that it was GAME ON and Launcestonians copped it every which way. Employment opportunities in the city were lost, so apart from being slugged with a loss that will amount to a rate rise, or a loss of services, Council’s management seems to be operating within an outsourcing environment that sends income opportunities to almost anywhere except Launceston. This is economic rationalism in action big time.

Who is actually minding the shop?

LAUNCESTON'S GENERAL MANAGER AND THE PRESS IN 2011

2011 is turning out to be a somewhat torrid time for Launceston's General Manager and Launceston City Council's ratepayers. Today's story – 9-2-2011 - in The Examiner there is yet another story carrying subliminal messages.

Mr Dobrzynski used the article to "hit back at material on the former city museum director's website." ... click here to directly access the story

The story reports that on the Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery's (QVMAG) ex-director's, Patrick Filmer-Sankey, website Mr Dobrzynski is documented as sending an email from his iPhone that read: "Poor sad Patrick."

Mr Filmer-Sankey has been using his website to criticise the council and the reasons for his dismissal last year for some time now.

Interestingly, Mr Dobrzynski is reported as saying that "he was concerned at their effect on his museum staff" – that is Mr Filmer-Sankey's assertions and commentaries on his website – and furthermore he went on to say "at times, as leader of that organisation [the QVMAG], I feel I need to comment."

Curiously, Launceston's ratepayers seems to have been operating under a delusion that the QVMAG has a new Director, Mr Richard Mulvaney, and that the Mayor is the leader of the QVMAG given that the museum is ultimately accountable to Council and not the General Manager. However, Mr Dobrzynski seems to think that the cap is his even if it doesn't fit.

Apparently all this has been going on somewhat under Mayor Albert van Zetten's radar. Even if it is late in the day the Mayor has "since spoken to Mr Dobrzynski about the matter" – the GM's comments to Mr Filmer-Sankey that is – and apparently offering the advice to "not to get involved in these things."

Despite this, Mr Dobrzynski said in the article that Council was taking legal advice which will doubtlessly cost Launceston's hapless ratepayers a motza. Goodness only knows how well the legal fraternity is already doing out of Mr Dobrzynski's 'museum management issues' to date. There is no way that it is insubstantial. What is more to the point, these legal expenses for the most part are quite likely designed to protect Mr Dobrzynski's reputation as much as, if not more than, Council's. It is very very hard to see a benefit to the ratepayers in this kind of legal expense.

When will the Aldermen get a handle on all this and start to take care of the ratepayers to whom they are accountable and who will be holding them so again at this years Council elections?

2011 in Launceston started out with Mr Dobrzynski pouring cold water over any notion of there being any street celebration for New Year in the city. January finished with Mr Dobrzynski telling Aldermen "to butt out of a review of the council's road line marking program." ... click here to directly access that story.

And then there was the QVMAG air conditioning ducts debacle when Mr. Dobrzynski, paraphrased, asserted the project had been appropriately approved. However, it seems that it has turned out otherwise. Here it seems that Launceston's hapless ratepayers may well be the losers yet again in that they are likely to find themselves on the wrong end of an avoidable cost over run.

If ratepayers are getting tired of the press publishing these stories involving Mr. Dobrzynski it is understandable given that there is typically a cost to them flagged in these stories. It is appreciated that the press that reports on the stories but it is just the case that ratepayers wish that Mr. Dobrzynski didn't keep giving cause for these stories to be published and sounding the alarm bells that they do. It's time that the city's Aldermen got on top of this situation and put a stop to the burgeoning extraordinary out of budget expenditure precipitated by their General Manager.

Launceston demonstrates its commitment to waste

Recently you may have been paying some attention to what is regarded as rubbish that is being disposed of in an emergency situation like the Brisbane floods. If you did, you will have seen a great deal of recoverable material being consigned to landfill. Given that it was an emergency it is understandable but there is always the hope that once the crisis is over the opportunity to recover damaged and discarded resources will be taken. You see Brisbane City Council has a pretty good attitude towards resource recovery outside crisis time ... look here

Launceston's General Manager boasts that he has impressive credentials in regard to sustainability. If you check that out online you get some interesting results ... look here He does seem to have served on the odd committee but those committees seem to have delivered their outcomes in jurisdictions other than his and that looks likely to be repeated in Launceston given the Examiner's reporting of Council's first meeting for 2011 ... look here

Possibly it is a Melbourne Council like the City of Port Phillip that really benefited from the talkfests and clearly this Council can be used as a model Council that takes sustainability seriously ... look here Interestingly, the City of Port Phillip has taken its constituents need to dispose of their redundant Christmas trees to heart and found ways to help out.

Reading the Examiner's report of Launceston City Council first meeting for the year it is clear that Launceston Waste Management Centre is indeed somewhere where Council manages to be extraordinarily wasteful.

Ald Ball initiated a very well well-attended public meeting last year to workshop resource recovery options but in the end it was just another talkfest of the kind that Council operatives seem disinclined to actually do anything about. Yet again Launceston's constituency is being ignored.

It also appears that Launceston is actually committed to a long-term landfill policy despite its total inappropriateness and Launcestonians looking for for better outcomes.

What's more, when our elected representatives make an effort to bring about change their efforts are thwarted by bureaucratic humbug and recalcitrance.

The more Launceston invests in Waste Management the poorer the outcome but it is after all mostly about waste down at Town Hall. While the waste is managed is it is being there is every prospect of an increase in people's rates looming just over the horizon.