STORY FROM THE EXAMINER ... click here to confirm that and read ALL the comments
Well
Robert you are actually engaged in academic bashing here while trying to look
authoritative. BUT, you cannot actually be authoritative while rejecting evidence. In
order to be authoritative you actually need to present EVIDENCE! So far that's missing!
IF there
is any amalgamation to be done all the councils’ bureaucracies need to be dissolved
and then the State government needs to appoint an INDEPENDENT administrator to administer the establishment
of a NEW and effective administration.
I guess
you’d reject that idea because you’d be out of a job immediately and most
likely ‘going forward’ too.
Perhaps Robert Dobrzynski you might like to debate Professor Brian Dollery?
We guess not!
ALEX
City boss slams amalgamation report
PATRICK BILLINGS 20 Jul, 2012 06:53 AM
PATRICK BILLINGS 20 Jul, 2012 06:53 AM
LAUNCESTON City Council general manager Robert Dobrzynski has launched a scathing attack on a local government report discouraging amalgamations, recommending aldermen ``reject '' it at Monday's meeting.
The report by Professor Brian Dollery recommends councils should share services instead of merging, arguing amalgamations almost always fail to deliver lower rates and charges.
The report was commissioned by Northern Tasmanian Development, an organisation consisting of the eight northern councils of which Launceston City Council is the biggest financial backer.
Mr Dobrzynski said the report ignored the reality of local government in the North including what he described as the major impediments to Launceston's economic development under multiple councils.
``This alone is a damning indictment on the inadequacies of the report,'' he said.
``The report appears to be little more than a cut and paste by the author from previous work . . . it pursues his penchant for broad-scale resource sharing as the panacea to all the ills of the current anachronistic 20th century local government framework in Northern Tasmania. ''
Professor Dollery told this month's Local Government Association of Tasmania conference that resource sharing would only lead to modest savings, if any, and real reform must include guaranteed funding streams from the state or federal governments.
But Mr Dobrzynski said the report had achieved its ``purpose of ensuring that no meaningful reform occurs''.
Mr Dobrzynski said the report would ``provide succour to those councils within the region seeking to assume the ostrich position to do nothing, conveniently avoiding the reality of the state and region's circumstances''.
Mr Dobrzynski said it was astounding that the report did not mention the ``inequity of 65,000 rate payers within the Launceston City Council area continuing to fund . . . facilities enjoyed by 106,000 people'' in the city and more in the region.
He also accused Professor Dollery of highlighting failed forced mergers when there were more successful endeavours in Victoria and New Zealand.
The report was commissioned by Northern Tasmanian Development, an organisation consisting of the eight northern councils of which Launceston City Council is the biggest financial backer.
Mr Dobrzynski said the report ignored the reality of local government in the North including what he described as the major impediments to Launceston's economic development under multiple councils.
``This alone is a damning indictment on the inadequacies of the report,'' he said.
``The report appears to be little more than a cut and paste by the author from previous work . . . it pursues his penchant for broad-scale resource sharing as the panacea to all the ills of the current anachronistic 20th century local government framework in Northern Tasmania. ''
Professor Dollery told this month's Local Government Association of Tasmania conference that resource sharing would only lead to modest savings, if any, and real reform must include guaranteed funding streams from the state or federal governments.
But Mr Dobrzynski said the report had achieved its ``purpose of ensuring that no meaningful reform occurs''.
Mr Dobrzynski said the report would ``provide succour to those councils within the region seeking to assume the ostrich position to do nothing, conveniently avoiding the reality of the state and region's circumstances''.
Mr Dobrzynski said it was astounding that the report did not mention the ``inequity of 65,000 rate payers within the Launceston City Council area continuing to fund . . . facilities enjoyed by 106,000 people'' in the city and more in the region.
He also accused Professor Dollery of highlighting failed forced mergers when there were more successful endeavours in Victoria and New Zealand.
3 comments:
Read the Advocate story too HERE>> http://www.theadvocate.com.au/news/local/news/general/merging-councils-will-not-cut-rates-expert/2623020.aspx
Can I buy a ticket for the debate somewhere?
So Mr D wants bigger Councils - presumably so that he ends up with an even higher paid position.
It's time these self serving bureaucrats delivered some value to the ratepayers instead of simply finding excuses to put up rates all the time.
It's time he and his staff started to find savings by operating efficiently.
There is something more than strange about all this. If an Alderman speaks out about an "operational matter" she/he is castigated by the GM for "interfering in operational matters".
Mr D is having a lot to say about what Aldermen should do and what advice they should listen to and what they should ignore and in public.
It looks a lot like he is interfering in "Council matters" and is even stepping over the line one might argue.
He may well be asked for his advice and in camera it would be okay for him to give it so long as it stopped right there.
But now his actions have all the hallmarks of a conflict of interest.
Like Dick says Mr D is after a more highly paid position it seems. The protocols are clear here. He needs to leave the room.
Is he in fact vilating a code of conduct?
Is he putting the Council at risk by making the kind of public statements he has and using the authority of his position to back them them up?
Will the Aldermen let all this pass them by? One might think they will. But why?
He should get back to looking after what he is paid, no overpaid, to do and considering his position much more carefully.
Post a Comment