Further Questions To Candidates Seeking Re-election

At the last Local Govt. elections there was a Candidates Forum for aspirant LCC Aldermen wishing to inhabit Town Hall. The record of that meeting can be found here –CLICK HERE

It turns out that this record can be regarded as a KPI (Key Performance Indicator) 'benchmark' for those who attended and something of a reality check for those who did not.

Whatever, t can be used now to assist in framing question for the current crop of candidates and aspirants. At the very least it makes interesting reading if your memory still works.

Questions for the Mayor and Aldermen

As the candidates for the 2014 Council elections become known there are burning questions that need to be put to them right now and especially so as they are asking for ratepayers’ and residents’ support – moral and financial.

The first set of question goes to the mayor since he is seeking re-election:
1. What is it that you want to “finish” that you could not in your 5 years as mayor?
2. Which projects did you start that you haven’t had time to finish?
3. What contributions have you made towards making the LCC budget both equitable and sustainable?

Then there are some questions for Aldermen seeking relelection:
1. How have you upheld LLC’s Organisational Values – http://www.launceston.tas.gov.au/lcc/index.php?c=69 – and ensured that management has observed them?
2. What for you has been Council’s most significant achievements in the past 3 years?
3. What budgetary savings can you see as being achievable in the next 2 to 4 years?

To provide your answers please either eMAIL TasRatepayers@7250.net  them to OR use the comments section below.

VALE Jeremy Ball

1968 - 2014
Deputy Mayor
City of Launceston

The tragic death of Jeremy Ball has highlighted the degree to which Jeremy participated in the Launceston community. His family's loss cannot be healed but perhaps the expressions of gratitude from all corners of the community can help in the celebration of his contributions and achievements.
 
Coming to terms with losing a husband, father, son, brother and colleague can never be easy. Our sincere condolences are given to Karina, Griffin & Jasper, to his parents John & Caroline, and other family members, and to those he worked with at council and in the community.
 
Alderman Ball was first elected to Launceston City Council in 2007 at the age of 38.
As Deputy Mayor, he has served since 2011, and at the time of his death was a candidate in the forthcoming elections for these positions.
 
He grew up in Launceston, but his adult working life was spent interstate and overseas in Japan and Europe, before returning back home to Launceston in 2002.
 
As an Alderman and Deputy Mayor, Jeremy Ball has served on many diverse and broad ranging committees, including Strategic Planning and Policy Committee; General Manager's Contract and Performance Review Committee; Heritage Advisory Committee; Launceston Bike Committee, Street Tree Advisory Group; North Bank; Tas Water and the Tamar Region NRM Group.
 
He will be remembered by everyone who shares his legacies to Launceston.

Lionel Morrell
President Tasmanian Ratepayers Association Inc.
on behalf of all ratepayers and residents.

Think About This Election Very Carefully

Click here to go to the website

When the good oil is what you need take the opportunity to get it from the most authoritative source.

Council Elections & Burning Questions

CLICK HERE FOR THE STORY

There is a whole lot of questions that need to be put to Launceston City Council right now and especially so now that an election is almost upon us. 

The first that is one front of mind is the mayor’s decision to seek another term to “finish” whatever we cannot remember him starting. Was there enough actually? 

Now rather than predigest a set of question how about all you out there in ratepayer land put your questions in the comment section below. That way the editors who have come together for this election will not be open to the critique of funny business.

Robert Dobrzynski

Here’s what he promised back then!
LOOK: http://tasratepayers.blogspot.com.au/2010/07/launcestons-new-general-manager-sets.html
Then look here http://tasratepayers.blogspot.com.au/2010_07_01_archive.html

Should he have done that?
Does it stack up?

Harry

BTW: Congratulations on hitting 13K views

Is Accountability a Myth or Even a Promise?

Launceston Council’s addiction to consultants is getting to be an issue and one that ratepayers need to think about in the upcoming elections in the context of these difficult times .
 
An important thing that needs to be taken into account, and that candidates need to be questioned about, is LCC’s reliance upon expensive and the often very ordinary outcomes delivered by consultants.
 
Why are ratepayers allowing the Council to use these people so often without protest? Why are consultants being commissioned when high salaries are paid to Council officers who are supposedly employed for their expertise? Do they not have the wherewithal to run a project and consult with the community? If not why not?
 
In 2014 any earnest manager of almost any operation should be delivering the opportunity dividends that information technologies are now delivering administrations elsewhere, in fact almost everywhere. When is it likely that these dividends will be made available to Launceston’s ratepayers? Does the city have the most competent and most qualified staff available? Has the city’s aldermen been asking this kind of question anywhere near often enough?
 
If the answer to any of these questions is no, then ratepayers need to be quizzing aldermanic candidates very closely about what they have to offer and what they can contribute. It is clear that Launceston Town Hall needs a good flush and an intensive operational audit to deal with the build up of administrative plaque.
 
There has been a long tradition of Launceston’s aldermen being sidelined by the administrators telling them that they have no role in administration. Quite right too! However, the aldermen are accountable to the ratepayers and consequently they must hold their officers accountable accordingly.
 
Ask the candidates you are likely to vote for if they will hold Council officers accountable. If they are incumbents ask them if they think they have done so and then make your judgements.
 
An audit of workplace practice and management methodologies is likely to expose some sorry tales. Ask the candidates if they are up to the task ahead of them? Ask them about the social dividends they should be able to deliver on. Most of all ask, are you ready to listen to your constituency and act?
 
Aldermen and officers are salaried but the only way constituents can get value for money is if they hold the city’s administrators accountable. There should be no room for aldermen, new or old, who are prepared to let things go in these difficult times

Peter Hill
hillside@tassie.net.au

A practical way to increase business, consumer and economic activity by cutting rates

CONTEXT: Letter sent to the State Governments relevant Ministers and copied to Tasmanian Ratepayers Association
STATUS: Unsolicited & copied to Tasmanian Ratepayer’s Association Inc.

TO:

• The Honorable Mr Peter Gutwein: State Treasurer and Minister for Local Government
• The Honorable Mr Matthew Groom: Minister for State Growth
  

Gentlemen,

I would like to suggest that you to look closely at opportunities that can be created by focussing Local Government on essential services and removing their 'dead hand' from entertainment, sporting and cultural activities which would significantly reduce their costs as well as opening new opportunities for the private sector.

Significant gains are possible because Councils have used their rate collecting and other powers to operate loss making pseudo-business activities which could normally be run profitably by the private sector. They have again (needlessly) demonstrated that bureaucratic methods are not adequate to stimulate business development or create profits.

Some local governments (e.g Launceston City Council) have taken on numerous non-essential activities which they appear only able to run at a loss. Examples for the LCC include sports stadiums and grounds, museums, swimming pool, a  gymnasium and a crematorium that add around $28 million to their operating costs – nearly 1/3 of the total.

The means of rewarding Councils creates a conflict of interest for them because higher expenditures are rewarded with larger budgets. The more money they spend, the more positions they can justify and the higher their salaries so there is absolutely no motivation for them to reduce or control expenditures, only incentives to spend more money. This is a conflict of interest that Council's should not have, e.g. when the responsibility for water was taken from the Council, avoiding about 20% of budget expenditure, the Launceston Council still found ways to justify an overall rate increase, regardless of the impacts on family budgets.

The constantly increasing rates that result are putting needless pressure on businesses and families as well as curtailing economic activity in the area.

Consequently I suggest that you consider:

Step 1) Causing all Councils to disclose all non-essential expenses as line items in their rate notices so that all ratepayers can understand what their monies are to be used for and judge their Council's accordingly;

Step 2) After review, consider making payment of non-essential rateable components optional or removing them; 

Step 3) Consider privatisating all possible non-essential rateable activities (by sale or lease), making exceptions as authorised by the State government, rather than at the Council's pleasure.

It is very difficult to see how, in today's turbulent economic conditions, Council's can possibly justify the power to seize a ratepayer's home and property to cover losses that the Council has incurred through poorly managed business operations and that provide services to only a small percentage of the community and, that could be better operated by private interests.

Removing loss-making, cost-centric Council methods by privatising the activities would have multiple benefits:

• Councils stop using rates to unfairly compete with private businesses, and
• Create new opportunities for private businesses and investment, and
• Reduce Council and State budgets (in Launceston's case this would be by tens of millions of dollars per year).
• Reducing rates would make businesses in the area more competitive by reducing their costs and increasing consumer wealth and spending (e.g. rate savings could total $500 per year per household in the LCC case).
  

The State government would benefit by

• significantly reduced costs;
• increased private sector involvement in local areas and more activity to produce profits and jobs;
• earning sales and lease income from transferring the chosen activities to the private sector;
• increased business and community support from significantly reduced rates;
• economic flow ons from the higher budgets available to Tasmanian property owners;
• greater State economic activity.
  

Best of all, these benefits would be achieved with either no, or easily offset, costs.

Rationalising Council activities in this way would certainly be resisted by Councils and their bureaucracies, however there are a number of ways to curtail that resistance and surely it is time that greater stimulus was provided to Tasmania's private sector? For too long now Council's have been in the 'saying no' business. A step towards revitalising and refocussing them on essential services would be one good investment.

With Mayors looking at a 4 year term and no apparent means for voters to change non-performing Mayors and Councils, a real change in the distribution and delivery of entertainment, cultural and similar services is indicated.

If you wish to discuss this matter further I can be contacted by email or phone.

Thank you for your attention,

Sincerely,

Mike Bolan
Complex systems consultant

FW: Launceston City Council Elections

Please Circulate

Authorised by Gina McKenzie 6 Rupert St. Launceston 7270 TAS

CONTACT INFORMATION
Mobile: 0418 132 442
Fax: 6337 3700
eMAIL: hugh@hughmckenzie.com.au
WEBsite: http://hughmckenzie7250.blogspot.com.au/

------ End of Forwarded Message