CALL TO RELOCATE THE LAUNCESTON WAR MEMORIAL FROM ROYAL PARK TO TOWN POINT

Launceston Cenotaph By Rod Oliver – From Snapped: After Dark

It is long overdue for serious consideration to be given to the relocation of Launceston's War Memorial from its now compromised location at the edge of Royal Park in Paterson Street to a more prominent and appropriate site, such as the historic TOWN POINT at the junction of the Tamar and Esk Rivers.

Debate has ebbed and flowed over the years about whether the present site in Royal Park was appropriate, particularly since the construction of the Northern Outlet Road extended on from Bathurst Street and bisecting Royal park in that deep, noisy ravine, cutting off the memorial from parklands that once flowed to the river's edge.

The Examiner of August 28 1923 records the lonely dissent of Alderman Hart to the selection of the present site, that at that time had been requested to be granted by the War Memorial Committee for the erection of the memorial. Ald. Hart's objections referred to the need for a more prominent site for such an important use, comparing the obelisk design in that location as appearing as little more than "resembling a small chimney stack" that would inevitably require the removal of important trees, just so as to visible.

News a few days ago reported on the Federal's Government's expenditure of a very handsome sum to embellish the access to Hobart's War Memorial. That memorial's sitting on the prominent point extending into the Derwent River leads to my suggestion that Launceston's War Memorial ought be relocated to Town Point, our most prominent riverside juncture from where, at the nearby King's Wharf, our soldiers boarded the troop ships heading off to war via interstate training camps, having been brought up to Launceston by train from Brighton Camp and farewelled by their loved ones at the embarkment point.

Following the decision to clear the old wool stores from Town Point and the completion of the Town Point Flood Levees, this extensive space is about to be transformed into grandiose parklands, so what better, more prominent and more appropriate place historically, is there for our War Memorial , than Town Point?

A revision of the landscaping plans, already funded, could entail an impressive approach avenue, traditionally the setting for war memorials, and the Memorial, the illuminated centrepiece of all vistas from the surrounding amphitheatre of hills, at the precise junction of Launceston's three rivers.

Lionel Morrell Architect and Heritage Consultant, 41 High Street Launceston

Footnote: Trooper James Egbert Morrell, my grandfather, perished during the Great War of 1914 -1918 at Cairo, and is interred in the War Memorial Cemetery at Suez. 

THE QVMAG ON THE CUSP OF CHANGE?

The Proposed QVMAG Strategic Directions Committee

Reading the agenda for Launceston Council's next meeting this coming Monday April 27, it seems that Ald. Hugh McKenzie has finally bitten the QVMAG bullet and has put a motion before Council for the formation of a QVMAG Strategic Directions Committee (QVMAG SDC). CLICK HERE TO READ THE MOTION

"The City of Launceston's Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery" comes at a considerable cost to the city's ratepayers. Consequently, each and every Launcestonian ratepayer and resident has a vested interest in Ald. McKenzie's motion as long term investors and stakeholders in the QVMAG.

It is important to understand that the QVMAG has grown like 'Topsy' for year upon year and arguably without constraint – 2000 to 2010 by something in the order of 300%. Launceston City Council has typically and "proudly" claimed the place as its very own. Nonetheless, successive Councils have been comfortable enough imposing the increasing costs upon Launceston's ratepayers as these costs have grown exponentially. 

Despite this declared 'ownership' the the governance and management of the institution has become increasingly blurred and arguably to the institutions serious detriment. Likewise, the fiscal impost on ratepayers has become increasingly inequitable over time. So the prospect of change is pregnant with possibilities ... CLICK HERE TO READ A LETTER TO THE ALDERMEN

THE QVMAG WEBSITE: CLICK HERE

THE QVMAG FACEbook: CLICK HERE

THE QVMAG BLOG: CLICK HERE

THE GENERAL MANAGER AND FISCAL ACCOUNTABILITY

NOTE: This kind of letter usually gets lost in the melee and fobbed off as a 3rd rate issue. When an aldermen speaks out during a Council budget preparation time it might tell us something about what is going on in camera.

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

The Examiner "Reduction of staff" 

CLICK HERE

"WITH the upheaval of the Glenorchy Council front and centre, the general manager is pressing ahead with the reduction of senior management roles. 

l would simply ask this question, what is Launceston doing to reduce the $4.3 million operational deficit of our council? 

The first thing any sizeable business, and Launceston City Council is one, with a turnover of $100 million and a gaping wound in the bottom line, should do is look at staffing levels to reduce that repetitive debt level. 

"Form and function" reviews have a purpose but they will not achieve the end result and that is to bring this council back into the black, just as Glenorchy are trying to achieve. 

With the Mayor and Ald McKenzie being two very experienced accountants, l would like to hear from them and see what methodology they would embark upon to fix this problem. 

It is without doubt the elephant in the room, but no one is prepared to recognise the problem and confront the issue. l have raised this issue many times but the response has been deafening. 

— TED SANDS, Launceston City Council alderman."

Launceston's council's operational wing has been empire building for a very long time, years and years, and maybe this is the time where the chooks come home to roost and time for the rooster get his wings clipped. 

A great deal of a council's services could be sensibly outsourced. But getting the empire builders to curb their power lust, well that's going to be resisted.  It is a lot to ask of the self interested.

Launceston has the most expensive rates in Tasmania and in large part that is down to the conga line of empire builders our silly aldermen have employed and allowed to be employed. Time for all aldermen to get on the job and hold, really hold, the operational wing of council to account. 

However, aldermen, let us not throw the baby out with the bath water in the flurry to be accountable.

YES PLEASE, LET US HEAR MORE FROM MORE ALDERMEN!

HORROR! HORROR! HORROR!

Reading this report and looking at the options, this would have to be the most ridiculous proposal imaginable! 

WHAT!!?? ... $4M TO PARK 40 CARS(?) = $100,000/car. 

This is Public Money utterly wasted on a private development.

Traffic lights on the approach road to Paterson Bridge, exiting traffic up the Brisbane St Zigzag to Hill St then down Canning St back to the city.

What must the vista of this be from across the city? And that is without adding the Gondola terminus at the end, the viewing platform and the upper structure of the passenger Lift from the Penny Royal below !! This zannyness of the highest order!!

It must be noted that the officer’s recommendation is to NOT PROCEED with the funding request until after the Gorge Reimagining Project is concluded.

The list of follies in this proposal are too many by far to begin to discuss here but LCC spending this kind of money without there being a dividend to ratepayers would be stretching the 'friendship'(?) too far.

On the face of it NO PUBLIC MONEY should be invested in this project except that provided by investors on the prospect of a fiscal dividend. Aside from RATE RELIEF there are so many projects more deserving of ratepayers' hard earned dollars.

CLICK BELOW TO ACCESS THE REPORT: 

http://www.launceston.tas.gov.au/upfiles/lcc/cont/_council/council/council_meetings/council_meeting_agendas/27_april_2015/attachment_2__gorge_skylift_development_total_pages34.pdf

WASTE MANAGEMENT: A Local Government Specialisation in Tasmania

CLICK HERE TOP GO TO THIS ARTICLE'S SOURCE

Tasmanian Local Government has developed a specialisation that ratepayers could well do without. 

Launceston City Council is pretty much Top Dog in the 'Waste Management' stakes given that:

• it charges ratepayers for taking their left over resources; and 
• then manages to waste them on a monumental scale; and
• all the time boasting unsustainably about their credentials as "Waste Managers".

In the Mercury's  Saturday Soapbox: Landfill just a wasted opportunity ... SHANE HUMPHERYS MERCURY APRIL 18, 2015 12:00AM – Shane Humphery points out that "Tasmania has the worst record of diversion of waste from landfill in the nation, and we are going backwards. The most recent data demonstrates that as a state we divert little more than 10 per cent all our waste from landfill, while the national average approaches 60 per cent. With little in the way of recycling and reprocessing infrastructure, most of what is recycled has to be shipped interstate or to South-East Asia."

This is nowhere more evident than in the North of the State. Launceston City Council huffs and puffs its exemplary performance in "WASTE MANAGEMENT" and irony begins with the Council Division's name – WASTE MANAGEMENT CENTRE: The place where they manage to waste mega amounts of resources.

Some time ago at a public meeting Launceston's General Manager, Robert Dobrzynski, was asked if he would change the centre's name to "Resource Recovery Centre" like Councils all over are doing and very bluntly he said "NO!" He's been as good as his word as "Waste Centre" is still the brand. Mind you, the Aldermen over the years have not been able to, or willing to, make him change his mind!

At  Launceston's City Council's Waste Management Centre (LCC-WMC)  their so called 'TIP SOP' Utipity – a really really catchy name – is a 'no muck' version of what this sort of enterprise can do and does elsewhere. Its really nice, years and years in the planning, and it must be the only Goldplated ... well hot dipped zinc plated ... facility of its kind in Christendom. That'll cost the ratepayers a pretty penny with no dividends – in fact it has.

As Shane Humphery says in Landfill just a wasted opportunity "In truly efficient systems, waste is broken down and reconstructed, reprocessed and reused" and the 'waste' that cannot be expediently dealt with is an energy source. As he says, "If waste were not managed in this way in nature, biological and ecological systems would collapse rapidly."

But we get the Council we vote for! Or do we? The waste management paradigm that the Local Government system puts upon us is yet another reason for changing the system. The system is too inefficient, too much under the CONTROL of too many bureaucrats and too inclined towards unaccountability to persist with. 

There is no use advocating change to waste management until Local Government in Tasmania is TOTALLY RATIONALISED.

LAUNCESTON'S WASTE BLOT, LCC-WMC, AS SEEN FROM SPACE

LAUNCESTONIAN WHISPERS AT TOWN HALL

CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO ENLARGE

For some, the prospect of Launceston Council’s behaviours being referred to the Integrity Commission come way too late. 

It is hard to get the commission’s attention it seems but at last it looks like that the threat of The Commission arriving on the doorstep just might alter administrative and aldermanic behaviours somewhat.


There are some, including the odd Alderman, who find that Council minutes have been unsatisfactory for years.

The minutes are typically abbreviated, often to irrelevance, and one is left asking why could that be?

It has been the case for quite a long time down at Town Hall and if one queries the record keeping you tend to get the sort “technical” sidestep the General Manager offered at Monday’s meeting.

Interestingly the Mayor seems to agree that this sort of thing has been going on for a long time when he says the General Manager "was only doing what he had done previously."

If as he says "Mr Dobrzynsky has a history of being consistent in such matters, what is there to made of that?

Of course he had to support Ald. Finlay in her efforts to ensure procedural propriety but where was he looking on previous occasions? The other way perhaps? If so why so?

It is legend that the Town Hall bureaucracy has a tendency to be the tail that wags the dog but hapless ratepayer generally need to take the rough with the smooth. However now there is the prospect of the Integrity Commission to  hold Council to account.

If as the Mayor seems to be saying here, if he is quoted in context, the General Manager has a history of consistency in such things. What questions does that leave hanging?

Rather, the question might be, who is holding who in contempt?

Local Government, Citizens Panels and Participatory Citizenship

 SEE: http://yoursay.sa.gov.au/what-is-a-citizens-jury-all-about

In the last week or so  the newDEMOCRACY Foundation – http://newdemocracy.com.au/our-work – has come to the attention of the Ratepayers Association. What is really interesting  is the way that various communities are delivering impressive outcomes in Australia via ‘participatory citizenship.

One notable case being Melbourne City Council ... SEE http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/futuretense/citzens-juries-giving-power-to-the-people/5779168

It is not the association’s job here to advocate on behalf of the foundation as it is quite able to do that very well for itself via its community work, the outcomes it has assisted in realising and of course via its own WEBsite. Nonetheless, we believe that the foundation’s work should be better known and that Tasmania, like South Australia for instance, would be well served by engaging with the foundation.

More to the point, we believe that the evidence is there for the concept of participatory citizenship, deservedly, winning increasing support. On the evidence participatory citizenship, via citizen’s juries and citizens panels, deserve to be proactively encouraged and especially so in regard to Local Govt . and the resolution of contentious issues.

Currently the issue of Tasmania’s over governance in regard to Local Govt. is on people’s minds. Tasmania’s Liberal Government’s  disposition not to force amalgamation is politically understandable. However, given recent press reports regarding the largess Aldermen/Councillors are able to afford themselves it is not too surprising that many in Local Govt. would wish to maintain the status quo.

After that, it is clear that Tasmania’s Council memberships, and the senior management of Tasmania’s Councils, have a clear conflict of interest that is working against achieving anything more than cosmetic change. The prospect of achieving consensual amalgamation and change has powerful forces working against it – largely fuelled by self interest – and speculatively driven by General Managers et al who would loose their jobs in the cause of fiscal efficiency.

Likewise, council members are unlikely to work all that hard to bring on this kind of change. Rather they could be expected to maintain the status quo until or unless their constituency persuaded them that that they would be better off under some changed arrangement. Chance would be a fine thing! Arguably, incumbency and self interest are working together here and mitigating against possibly even cosmetic change.

The newDEMOCRACY Foundation's core offer to elected representatives is its willingness to operate an innovative democratic processes on a non-commercial basis. It does this on the basis of a predefined level of authority being devolved to the citizens who participate. There are processes currently underway and others that have delivered their outcomes.

Thinking of Tasmania’s situation in regard to the rationalisation and improved accountability of Local Government there are a number entry points through which participatory citizenship could be profitably tested.

The most obvious issue which might be referred to a ‘citizen’s jury’ is Tasmania’s overarching Local Govt. structure, something that has evolved over time and that has accumulated a series of compounding, legacies all defined by now anarchic understandings of civic administration. Furthermore, they represent a social and economic circumstance that are no longer relevant to contemporary community understandings and current realities.

Is Tasmania’s Local Government structure equitable and sustainable in a 21st Century context? 

It is possible that a Citizens’ Jury/Panel may well have a role to play in resolving and relieving the social tensions surrounding the scale and restructuring local governance in Tasmania – specifically to do with the equity, sustainability and accountability of Tasmania’s local governance system.

Taking a look at what the newDEMOCRACY Foundation has to offer, who is involved and what indeed is on offer via their good offices, we find their work impressive. In the cause of better outcomes for Tasmania we can only advocate that the State Government consider engaging with the foundation as an alternative to enlisting incumbent Local Governments in an exercise they have little or no interest in being proactive participants.

On the evidence, it seems that incumbent Councils have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo which is increasingly all too obvious.

The Tasmanian Ratepayers Association can only recommend that  the Minister for Local Government take some time to investigate what ‘participatory citizenship’ via agencies such as the newDEMOCRACY Foundation has to offer. Having done so it would enable Government to findings to bear in regard to the furtherance of discussion and action in regard to Council amalgamation and rationalisation in Tasmania. There are strong arguments to suggest that yesterday was already way too late!

Launceston, Local Govt. Citizenship & Accountability

STORY LINK: http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/futuretense/citzens-juries-giving-power-to-the-people/5779168

Drawing issues like NEW DEMOCRACY initiatives to the attention of a Council one needs to fully expect that the idea will  find its way into the BLACKhole that the ubiquitous Town Hall ‘executive’ maintains with care and dilegence.

Its a pity that accountability gets such a poor level of commitment but there we go, that’s the legacy we are destined to bear until someone sees the prospect of change and goes for it.

It’d be very interesting to see comments and responses to the prospect of change that challenged the comfortable status quo. It seems that ‘the governors’ just do not want to consider lifting their game, ever much when the comfortable defence of the status quo is at hand. But the status quo is just no longer a viable option.

However, if we look at Melbourne’s willingness to include rather than exclude its constituency there seems to be a light at the end of the tunnel. . That is if you think the links here have any veracity at all in contrast to the status quo and that anyone at all will take the time to look at the options and opportunities that are being explored.

Its just the case that there is no real reason to think that governance is beyond the reach of criticism and critique.

Yesterday’s Examiner article “Mayors prepare to share – http://www.examiner.com.au/story/2996803/mayors-prepare-to-share/” gives one that terrible sinking feeling that you get when you harbour any kind of hope at all against the odds. Well done LCC you’ve collectively disappointed yet again!
 
Launceston’s efforts in disenchanting it’s neighbours have born all the fruits of distain and distrust that could have been expected. And, quite reasonably so from the neighbours points of view given Launceston’s ill considered alienating empire building behaviours over time – all championed by its ‘executive wing’.
 
It’ll be Launceston’s citizenry and ratepayers who’ll pay ever so dearly – and it all be so needlessly.  It’s not as if it was not ever in prospect. Launceston’s mayor’s openly declared position of extending Launceston’s boundaries was always flawed and fuelled by hubris. Filled as it was/is with misleading rhetoric and the self-serving pretentiousness of the empire builder, it was ever likely to offend.
 
When will accountability be given any substance and importance in Launceston’s governance?
 
When one offends it is usual to be punished. However, here it’s not the executive who’ll bear the punishment. Rather, they’ll continue to savour the spoils and largess of their office.
 
Getting serious matters of concern in regard to Council’s accountability on the agenda is near to impossible. By-and-large criticism and critique goes unacknowledged and/or uncontested. So one can see the city’s neighbours’ point of view well enough when they try to open a dialogue that is an exchange of views rather than be the recipients of Launcestonian self-serving wisdom.
 
People wish to be participants in their governance and they do not wish to be caught up in polarised in unproductive adversarial (lose-lose) contests.

The evidence in support of this is compelling. SEE http://participate.melbourne.vic.gov.au/projects/10yearplan/
As discovered in Melbourne, trusted outcomes are achieved when leadership allows constituents to participate in their governance. This was achieved via randomly selected citizens deliberating and handing down a determination based on the evidence before them. It works in our courts with juries and only those who do not respect the notion of justice would deny that it does – albeit not always flawlessly.
 
It may or may not be known that Melbourne City Council exposed itself to this kind of scrutiny with apparently positive outcomes within the Melbourne community and internationally  – on the evidence. Some reference links are provided here for the enlightenment of those who not had the opportunity to become acqainted with Melbourne’s initiative. SEE http://www.newdemocracy.com.au/our-work/item/219-city-of-melbourne-people-s-panel
 
Albert Einstein reminded us that “In matters of truth and justice, there is no difference between large and small problems, for issues concerning the treatment of people are all the same.”
 
If you believe that I’m misguided in the views I’m putting to you please rebut them. If they have any relevance please acknowledge that, even if qualified, and let’s get on with delivering better governance not just in Launceston but also our region and beyond. Let’s lead by way of example. That’s what leadership is all about