Dear Editor,
Here is a line of communication with Launceston City Council concerning the actual consequence of the LCC Motion concerning the Town Clock chimes which have been somewhat confused with the striking of the hours between 11pm and 6am.
The response chooses to focus on whether the motion is legitimate in compliance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 1993 (Tas) and regulations pursuant to that act, not whether it has relevance, given that the chimes are already turned off during the period cited in the motion.
The response also ignores the potential influence of the British High Court decision (reference previously provided to Aldermen prior to their resolution of the motion).
The lack of regard to answering that question, is curious, let alone disappointing under the circumstances where ratepayer funds could potentially be at risk should a court action be proceeded with.
I fully understand the safety of Council proceeding to appear to recognize that a motion of no consequence would be regarded by any Court as being a nullity in the event that any party sought to rely upon it in a court action. It would seem a somewhat irresponsible activity of a Public Body such as Launceston City Council, if this nullity were to cause another party to take action, believing that the motion had substance, and that party sought to have the matter dealt with, but was ultimately caused to accept a damage or loss, because nothing actually can happen as a result of this nullity.
Please publish this report seeking input and comment from ratepayers.
Regards,
Lionel Morrell
President
Tasmanian Ratepayers Association Inc.
From: Lynda Jackson [LCC]
Sent: Thursday, 21 July 2011 4:04 PM
To: Lionel Morrell
Subject: RE: Concern at Council Motion regarding Town Clock URGENT
Dear Mr Morrell,
I note your email below.
I advise I have raised this matter with the General Manager. The General Manager has indicated that the relevant motion meets the form of a motion as required under the Local Government Act 1993 (Tas) and the regulations made under that Act. As such, in terms of form and content, the motion is legitimate.
Please note the role of the Corporate Secretary is to support the function of the General Manager and the administration of Council. As such, if you wish to seek further advice regarding the legitimacy of the motion, you may wish to seek your own legal advice. Alternatively you may wish to refer your query to an external review body, such as the Ombudsman or the Director of Local Government (Department of Premier and Cabinet).
Regards,
Lynda-Jane Jackson (BA-LLB) I Legal Officer I Launceston City Council
Here is a line of communication with Launceston City Council concerning the actual consequence of the LCC Motion concerning the Town Clock chimes which have been somewhat confused with the striking of the hours between 11pm and 6am.
The response chooses to focus on whether the motion is legitimate in compliance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 1993 (Tas) and regulations pursuant to that act, not whether it has relevance, given that the chimes are already turned off during the period cited in the motion.
The response also ignores the potential influence of the British High Court decision (reference previously provided to Aldermen prior to their resolution of the motion).
The lack of regard to answering that question, is curious, let alone disappointing under the circumstances where ratepayer funds could potentially be at risk should a court action be proceeded with.
I fully understand the safety of Council proceeding to appear to recognize that a motion of no consequence would be regarded by any Court as being a nullity in the event that any party sought to rely upon it in a court action. It would seem a somewhat irresponsible activity of a Public Body such as Launceston City Council, if this nullity were to cause another party to take action, believing that the motion had substance, and that party sought to have the matter dealt with, but was ultimately caused to accept a damage or loss, because nothing actually can happen as a result of this nullity.
Please publish this report seeking input and comment from ratepayers.
Regards,
Lionel Morrell
President
Tasmanian Ratepayers Association Inc.
From: Lynda Jackson [LCC]
Sent: Thursday, 21 July 2011 4:04 PM
To: Lionel Morrell
Subject: RE: Concern at Council Motion regarding Town Clock URGENT
Dear Mr Morrell,
I note your email below.
I advise I have raised this matter with the General Manager. The General Manager has indicated that the relevant motion meets the form of a motion as required under the Local Government Act 1993 (Tas) and the regulations made under that Act. As such, in terms of form and content, the motion is legitimate.
Please note the role of the Corporate Secretary is to support the function of the General Manager and the administration of Council. As such, if you wish to seek further advice regarding the legitimacy of the motion, you may wish to seek your own legal advice. Alternatively you may wish to refer your query to an external review body, such as the Ombudsman or the Director of Local Government (Department of Premier and Cabinet).
Regards,
Lynda-Jane Jackson (BA-LLB) I Legal Officer I Launceston City Council
No comments:
Post a Comment