Launceston's GM, Robert Dobrzynski, entertains the idea that he has an opinion that counts when it comes to policy determination. He espouses rates being a "wealth tax" and a "progressive" one at that.
He is allowed an opinion but it shouldn't count for all that much because his role is to do the enacting of policies determined by the Aldermen. And when there is a legal impediment bound up in his opinion it should count for nothing. He is by his own words, he is "accountable to the Aldermen" and this carries the unspoken subtext "not the ratepayers." He is unelected servant of the city.
However he is never backward in coming forward when he believes that Aldermen stray into "operational matters". Typically he'll lecture them loud and long if they stray, but who is lecturing him, or even telling him, about the inappropriateness of his espousing and advocating opinions and especially so when he is on shaky ground. It is not his role and he'll tell you so when its convenient so to do.
Note his response to a request for information ... "It is entirely inappropriate for Council Officers to respond to you on the matters raised in your submission prior to the Council's consideration of the submissions. It is the elected Council that determines a position on the submissions received, not the Council officers. As with other matters, the role of the administration is to provide sufficient information and recommendations on the matters raised to enable consideration by the Aldermen and a decision by the Council." He is right of course but he expects the Aldermen to accept his opinion as being "sufficient" to meet his assessment the operational demands determined by him and his underlings for their purposes.
Mr. Dobrzynski is, it would appear, disinclined to search for savings evidenced by expenditures all too often exceeding the CPI. As requests for information are rebuffed it seems that they are "entirely inappropriate" no matter who asks. One day this may change but do not hold your breath this year.
He is allowed an opinion but it shouldn't count for all that much because his role is to do the enacting of policies determined by the Aldermen. And when there is a legal impediment bound up in his opinion it should count for nothing. He is by his own words, he is "accountable to the Aldermen" and this carries the unspoken subtext "not the ratepayers." He is unelected servant of the city.
However he is never backward in coming forward when he believes that Aldermen stray into "operational matters". Typically he'll lecture them loud and long if they stray, but who is lecturing him, or even telling him, about the inappropriateness of his espousing and advocating opinions and especially so when he is on shaky ground. It is not his role and he'll tell you so when its convenient so to do.
Note his response to a request for information ... "It is entirely inappropriate for Council Officers to respond to you on the matters raised in your submission prior to the Council's consideration of the submissions. It is the elected Council that determines a position on the submissions received, not the Council officers. As with other matters, the role of the administration is to provide sufficient information and recommendations on the matters raised to enable consideration by the Aldermen and a decision by the Council." He is right of course but he expects the Aldermen to accept his opinion as being "sufficient" to meet his assessment the operational demands determined by him and his underlings for their purposes.
Mr. Dobrzynski is, it would appear, disinclined to search for savings evidenced by expenditures all too often exceeding the CPI. As requests for information are rebuffed it seems that they are "entirely inappropriate" no matter who asks. One day this may change but do not hold your breath this year.
No comments:
Post a Comment