On Monday Launceston’s General Manager, Robert Dobrzynski, at the last Council Meeting, as reported in the Examiner yesterday, engaged in an unseemly stoush with an Alderman, Ald. Rosemary Armitage. As reported “Alderman Rosemary Armitage had proposed that aldermen be notified of upcoming neighbourhood or street meetings between council officers and ratepayers.”
Mr. Dobrzynski, claimed that his authority was being threatened and claimed that what Ald. Armitage was seeking represented "an unreasonable interference" in his ability to perform his functions as a General Manager. Did it really?
Ratepayers are bemused. Just what is that is the problem here? See these earlier entries ... [1] ... [2]
- Is it that the GM does not welcome ratepayers winning the support of Aldermen on an issue?
- Is it the case that Council Officer’s advice to Aldermen is always consistent with ratepayer’s experience of a consultation process between Council Officers and themselves?
- Is it extraordinary that ratepayers should wish to have Aldermen present at a meeting between themselves and Council Officers to have first hand insights into what happened?
- Is it unacceptable for ratepayers to wish to have Aldermanic representation or presence at a meeting between themselves and Council Officers on an issue?
Perhaps it is time to take another look, in fact a good look, at Launceston City Council’s so called core values to do with Integrity, Stewardship, Inclusion, initiative, Teamwork and last but not least Accountability.
Council Officer should revisit the Council website and do a reality check for themselves and the Aldermen need to do the same as well as asking themselves how they rate as upholders of these values. Ratepayers depend upon both Officers and Aldermen to uphold these values but most of all the Aldermen as it is they who endorse them.
Just in case anyone has missed this entry on the Launceston City Council’s website here they are for your information and reference.
Copied from LCC Website 30.03.2011
Organisational Values
Integrity
- We behave ethically;
- We tell the truth;
- We keep our commitments; and
- We meet both the spirit and intent of the law.
Stewardship
- We care about people and the community in which we live;
- We operate safely;
- We are environmentally responsible; and
- We strengthen the community.
Inclusion
- We value diversity and respect the dignity of each person;
- We value differences in people and perspectives;
- We build relationships based on mutual trust; and
- We recognise the contributions of every individual.
Initiative
- We lead the way;
- We have the courage and creativity to shape the future;
- We have the discipline to manage risk; and
- We act decisively in a timely manner.
Teamwork
- We work together to achieve superior results;
- We share ideas and talents to develop solutions;
- We support and rely on each other; and
- We value clear and open communication.
Accountability
- We take responsibility for our actions;
- We live our values;
- We set clear goals, measure results and seek to improve; and
- We build and protect the Launceston brand and reputation.
SOMETHING TO PONDER: That thought expressed so well by Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803 - 1882) "I don't want any yes-men around me. I want everybody to tell me the truth even if it costs them their jobs."
7 comments:
Yes all this this is just another sad example of the poor state the Launceston City Council. Indeed, if the General Manager needs to seek legal advice on this sort of matter that tells us something, in fact a great deal.
It is obvious that Aldermen find themselves in invidious positions and too often are called upon to rule against the decisions/recommendations of their officers just because they fail to fit the circumstances and are founded upon flawed consultation processes
With this council it seems to happen all too often and of recent times with alarming frequency.
Yes officers are paid to perform a task and they are employed in areas that they have experience. The trouble is they seem to see themselves as being unaccountable for their short comings.
Launceston City Council has a long history of needing to make decisions against recommendations of officers, recommendations which all too often land the Council, and consequently ratepayers too, into trouble.
Clearly its time for a reality check!
An interesting situation but one that needs further examination.No where in the original comment made about the GM'S difference of view with Alderman Armitage did it say the GM was trying to ensure that Aldermen and the GM were acting within the scope of the Local Government Act. This act regulates our conduct and spells out our roles.If we did not act within the realms of the act we can get into serious trouble.In addition to this, alert ratepayer groups such as this one would say we were acting outside our authority.The GM simply sought clarity on the matter and it is very clear that aldermen can attend meetings as they see fit. The clarification just mean that it is not the GM's job to inform aldermen of every single meeting that occurs for planning, mediation, street or suburb meetings.It was very prudent of the GM to get proper clarification around this so it spelt out clearly what his role was and that aldermans roles did not interfere in operational matters.
Well Alderman Soward while there may be some truth in what you are saying it is interesting that is almost always the ratepayers that get treated like mushrooms by both the aldermen and the officers. You should try attending a street meeting some time as officers call up laws and regulations that just do not stand up. Why they do it is beyond understanding and if you challenge them, the officers and their regulations, you get the run around until you cannot afford to spend any more time dealing with them. A standard tactic I am told. Having some aldermen present at these meetings would certainly add a layer of discipline ratepayers might like to get used to. Every one of these meetings I’ve attended the bulldust alarm went off a couple of minutes in. Then you go to an alderman and they either defend the officers or deliver a new line that sets the alarm off again. I just do not see what the problem is if aldermen attend these meetings. Is it because they are likely to be exposed to the porky telling? This is not a legal issue it is all about behavior, trust and truth. It seems that the GM cannot trust either the aldermen or his officers so he excludes the aldermen. What is going on here? If he doesn’t trust aldermen to observe the distance they must then the aldermen had better resign because they are not equipped to represent those who elect them. It seems that the GM is only accountable to himself looking at all this.
i do not know what all the fuss is about .... when i ask council workers why the people in my street were not consulted i get a long list of reasons ... its too expensive ... there is no time ... you live across the street and its not your concern ... i could go on ... so me thinks that this is a storm in a tea cup because there are not intended to be at of these meetings anyway
In response to "Rosemary Armitage supporter" there is a lot of truth to what I said.. in fact 100 percent truth.I was at the council meeting and heard and participated in the discussion.I read the notes and information in the agenda where it was all spelt out in black and white.The General Manager's comments, Alderman Armitages comments and the legal opinion as well.I have attended a number of meetings myself and have at those found council officers to be friendly, helpful and obliging.Sometimes they have said things that people havent liked but that is often the case in a development scenario. There is no problem if aldermen attend these meeting- none at all. This is clear in all the discussion that took place at the meeting and in the meeting notes.The real issue was about whether it was the GM's role to advise aldermen of every single meeting staff were engaged in with residents/ ratepayers and there was much discussion about aldermen being " observers" -this was in the motion.What is an observer? is a point I raised; some aldermen wanted to go and sit in on mtgs others wanted to interact etc. I urge you to listen to the online recording of the meeting when it goes on the council website.
FOR THE RECORD: Extract from Agenda 28.03.20011 & Minutes
http://www.launceston.tas.gov.au/upfiles/lcc/cont/about_council/pdfs/council_meetings/minutes/council_agenda_28_mar_2011.pdf
12.2 Notice of Motion - Notification of Neighbourhood Meetings - Ald Armitage
FILE NO: SF5547, SF0608
AUTHOR: Alderman Armitage
GENERAL MANAGER: Robert Dobrzynski
DECISION STATEMENT:
To consider a Notice of Motion from Alderman Armitage on Notification of Neighbourhood Meetings.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
N/A
NOTICE OF MOTION:
That Aldermen receive notice of all proposed neighbourhood or street meetings held with Council officers, in a timely manner, to enable attendance if desired.
Mr Robert Dobrzynski was in attendance to answer questions of Council in respect of this agenda item.
DECISION: 28/03/2011
COUNCIL AGENDA Monday 28 March 2011
11
12.2 Notice of Motion - Notification of Neighbourhood Meetings - Ald Armitage
FILE NO: SF5547, SF0608
AUTHOR: Alderman Armitage
GENERAL MANAGER: Robert Dobrzynski
DECISION STATEMENT:
To consider a Notice of Motion from Alderman Armitage on Notification of Neighbourhood Meetings.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
N/A
NOTICE OF MOTION:
That Aldermen receive notice of all proposed neighbourhood or street meetings held with Council officers, in a timely manner, to enable attendance if desired.
REPORT:
It came to my notice in a recent Aldermen's Fax that several neighbourhood meetings had been held with regard to traffic islands and other proposed alterations to Launceston streets of which Aldermen were unaware. Aldermen had not been notified of these meetings, making attendance impossible.
I believe these meetings are similar to mediation meetings whereby Aldermen are able to attend as observers, and it is therefore important that we are aware of these meetings so that we can see what is proposed, as well as any objections or otherwise.
While it is appreciated that these meetings are primarily for officers to ascertain public opinion on proposals, as the duly elected representatives of the public, we are often their first point of call, and it is therefore appropriate we have the opportunity to attend these meetings.
+++++++
RESOLUTION: (1):
Moved Alderman R L Armitage, seconded Alderman R L McKendrick.
That Aldermen receive notice of neighbourhood or street meetings with regard to Council proposals held with Council officers, to enable attendance as observers.
Ald R I Soward withdrew from meeting at 2:51pm.
Ald R I Soward re-attended meeting at 2:51pm.
12.2 Notice of Motion - Notification of Neighbourhood Meetings - Ald Armitage…(Cont’d)
Ald R I Soward withdrew from meeting at 3:34pm.
Alderman Dean took the Chair at 3.35pm.
The Mayor resumed the Chair at 3.36pm.
12.2 Notice of Motion - Notification of Neighbourhood Meetings - Ald Armitage…(Cont’d)
RESOLUTION: (2):
Moved Alderman J D Ball, seconded Alderman A C Peck.
That an extension of time of 3 minutes be granted to Alderman R I Soward.
ABSENT. DID NOT VOTE - Ald A M Van Zetten
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 11:0
Ald R W Shipp withdrew from meeting at 3:12pm.
Ald R W Shipp re-attended meeting at 3:15pm.
RESOLUTION: (3):
Moved Alderman R I Soward, seconded Alderman J D Ball.
That an extension of time of 3 minutes be granted to Alderman I N Dean.
ABSENT. DID NOT VOTE - Ald A M Van Zetten
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 11:0
RESOLUTION: (4):
Moved Alderman A C Peck, seconded Alderman R I Soward.
That an extension of time of 3 minutes be granted to Alderman J D Ball.
ABSENT. DID NOT VOTE - Ald A M Van Zetten
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 11:0
Ald R I Soward re-attended meeting at 3:35pm.
THE SUBSTANTIVE MOTION (Res 1) WAS PUT AND LOST 3:8
FOR VOTE - Ald R L McKendrick, Ald R L Armitage, Ald I S Norton
AGAINST VOTE - Ald F R Nott, Ald A L Waddle, Ald J D Ball, Ald R I Soward, Ald R W Shipp, Ald R J Sands, Ald A C Peck, Ald I N Dean
ABSENT. DID NOT VOTE - Ald A M Van Zetten
What redress do ratepayers have when council staff interfere with the aldermen's decisions or ignore them even?
Post a Comment