LETTER TO THE EDITOR

QUADRANT MALL REFURBISHMENT 

As reported in the Examiner today, and from the get-go, this “City Heart Project”, and its outcomes, has proven to be utterly ill conceived, ham-fisted and fiscally reckless on the Council’s part.

When setting out to spend $1.9million of ratepayer’s money it would be reasonable to include them in the equation but not a bit of it. It’s our money now!

Yes, the aldermen represent the ratepayers but it seems not actively on the evidence here. The aldermen seem happy enough to stand aside on the pretext of observing ‘due process’.

Yes, people in the street were quizzed but it seems only to get the answers wanted. Arguably, the so-called consultation ‘process’ was conceived as being a box-to-tick and politically decorative.

Here we have all the hallmarks of the operational wing of council telling the aldermen what is going to happen and requiring them to “get out of the way”. Currently, they are doing just that. 

Moreover, the Mayor is mouthing management’s perspective rather than either taking on board the trader’s or even his wider community’s concerns. Is this representation?

Reportedly, on the dawn of work about to begin someone asked “what about the stakeholders” only to hear a chorus of “OOPS” followed up by a couple of meetings in laneways with a token number of cherry-picked “representatives”. 

A source from within the thick of it, that cannot be named, has described the whole process as a “monumental stuff up.”  On the evolving evidence, that seems about right.

The ongoing issue with Launceston Council is it’s disconnect between its constituents and its operations on the ground which in the end boils down to a total disinclination to be accountable.

Sometime soon this must stop!

Ray Norman

Trevallyn

The Examiner Story

 http://www.examiner.com.au/story/3862377/quadrant-mall-works-wreak-havoc/?cs=95

Quadrant Mall works damage local business ... ALICIA BARKER April 21, 2016,

Frustrated shop owners say they’re losing business over ongoing construction works in the Quadrant Mall.

Walkers Flowers owner Jo Pennington said she’d lost more than 50 per cent of her regular business since the works began.
“This is my second dose because they did Dicky Whites [Lane] last year, so that really affected things strongly last year too.
"I don’t know what’s worse, the blocking everything off or the noise levels. It’s been challenging.”

She said when taller barriers were installed outside her shop, a window was smashed by vandals and floral bouquets were stolen from outside her shop.

“When the machines sit straight out in front of the shop, the noise levels have been extreme.
“I realise Baker Construction has done their utmost to limit noise and disruption in a difficult situation close to the shop.
“I’m lucky in that many of my customers will telephone and order in, but foot traffic and walk-ins have been down dramatically and a lot of customers who do come in complain about the noise level.”
Ex-retailer at The Flower Barrow in Quadrant Mall and current sales assistant in the mall Gai Chesworth said she couldn’t see the point of the works.
“They should fix the parking because no-one’s coming into the city to shop and all the businesses are closing.”
Hope & Me homewares shop owner Lindi McMahon said the works had not affected business at the shop in the lead up to Mother's Day.

The $1.9m redevelopment of the Quadrant Mall was part of the Launceston City Heart Project undertaken by the Launceston City Council.

Construction on the project began in the last week of February and is estimated to be complete in August, weather permitting.

Launceston Mayor Albert van Zetten said it was important to remember the mall was open for business.

"The works are being conducted in such a way that access to all shops in the Quadrant Mall will be maintained for the duration of the works.

"This presents its own set of challenges, but as a council we understand the importance of maintaining that access for the businesses, and in turn how important those businesses are to the Quadrant Mall and Launceston's CBD.”

Citizen's Petition Progress Report

Council has flagged that it is “going absolutely by the book” despite there being 1,493 signatures. In its own way that says something for community engagement, accountability and “Organisational Values”!

Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2016 23:34:20 +0000 To: Ray Norman 7250  Cc: Robert Dobrzynski Mayor
Subject: RE: Citizen's Petition Progress

The response on behalf of the General Manager.

As outlined in the Council Report on 11 April 2016, the General Manager, in accordance with s60(2) of the Local Government Act 1993 (the Act), will report to Council within 42 days after tabling the petition. This will therefore be on or before 23 May 2016.

Following the Council Meeting, if the petition complies with s59 of the Act, the council will hold the public meeting within 30 days after the meeting, which is on or before 22 June 2016.

When [Council] has] determined the date of the Council Meeting, [the authoriser] will be advised regarding the petition's compliance and the date of the Council Meeting in accordance with s60(1) of the Act.

From: Ray Norman 7250 ] Sent: Sunday, 17 April 2016 6:30 PM To: Robert Dobrzynski; Mayor
Subject: Citizen's Petition Progress

Dear Robert and Albert,

I note from the Council minutes that the Citizen Petition to Council has been tabled in accordance with Section 58 of the Local Government Act 1993 (Tas) and I have advised several petitioners of this fact.

I am however receiving many enquiries about the expected timeline from this point forward in respect to the petition. In particular, as the authorising person, I’m being asked about the anticipated date for the public meeting. I would appreciate any advice that you are able to offer in order that I can more adequately advise petitioners seeking this information.

Regards,

Ray Norman

“A body of men holding themselves accountable to nobody ought not to be trusted by anybody.” Thomas Paine
“The standard you walk past is the standard you accept ”  David Morrison

COUNCIL TO BE SACKED!

CLICK HERE http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/dysfunctional-geelong-council-sacked-for-four-years-20160411-go3txf.html

Participatory Budgeting– The Australian Way

Click Here to download

Abstract 

For the first time in Australia a local council has used a deliberative democracy approach to obtain citizen advice on key decisions regarding the full range of Council services, service levels and funding. Typically a participatory budget (PB) gives citizens authority in relation to a component of the local government budget. The City of Canada Bay Council, in metropolitan Sydney, went well beyond this. 

In this paper the Canada Bay Citizens’ Panel (CP), the name given to the PB, is compared to the traditional PB process highlighting three distinctive features of this process: 

(1) the use of a randomly selected group of citizens; 

(2) the role of the newDemocracy Foundation as a ‘nonpartisan intermediary organisation’ (Kadlec and Friedman, 2007); and 

(3) the engagement of council staff through a parallel process convened by the Council, using a randomly selected staff panel. 

Whilst it is too early yet to make any final judgments, there is promising evidence that the recommendations of this CP will be seriously considered and that this engagement model will be used again by the City of Canada Bay, for the next four-year delivery plan and other contentious issues. 

Even though the Canada Bay Citizens’ Panel process is not yet complete, it is already clear that its impact will be felt, not only on the budget of the City of Canada Bay, but more broadly as an exemplar for local governments in Australia thinking about engaging their citizens. 

Recommended Citation Thompson, Nivek K. (2012) "Participatory budgeting - the Australian way," Journal of Public Deliberation: Vol. 8: Iss. 2, Article 5. 

Available at: http://www.publicdeliberation.net/jpd/vol8/iss2/art5

THE LAUNCESTONIAN CONSULTATION FURPHY

ROAD CHANGES 

LACK of consultation corrodes confidence in governments and organisations. ........................ In terms of a local issue, surrounding residents should be contacted on a direct mail basis. ........................ Costly, but cheaper than the $400,000 proposed for the Launceston City Council, Westbury Road changes. ........................ "Your Voice, Your Launceston" is a good consultation tool provided by council for broad matters. ........................ But in practicality working families don't have time to complete a survey every month. ........................ If contacted directly about an issue within their local area, I feel people would be more likely to share their thoughts rather than the more obscure offerings of the Your Voice, Your Launceston website. ........................ Furthermore it was surprising to hear that both Prospect High School and St Patrick's College were not contacted either. ........................Any Launceston resident would understand the congestion during school peak times. ........................ We all know this isn't the first time. Remember the Wellington Street tree planting? Just to mention one. ........................ Launceston - Let's ensure our local government and Aldermen are more consultative and accountable to us. ........................ Too often the first time residents hear of proposals or issues is via an Examiner article. ........................ On bigger but local issues such as the Westbury Road, changes by local government must be direct to residents. That is how we can restore confidence in local government again. 

A. Carter, Mowbray 

EDITOR'S NOTE: The issue of consultation at Launceston Council is increasingly concerning. Management serially invokes SECTIONS 65 and 62 of the Local Govt. Act 1993 as the 'authority', and the mechanisms for, circumventing meaningful consultation processes. 

The 'Social Media Mechanism' for community consultation turns out as being slanted towards in-house management imperatives as is demonstrated by the implementation of plans for Westbury Road where clearly whatever passed for 'community consultation' has failed to take account of legitimate community concerns.

This compounds the impact upon Quadrant Mall traders are suffering as a consequence of the City Heart development. Here traders had their 'stake' in the development recognised after plans had been implemented, contracts let, etc. Sadly, in this instance traders are facing significant losses with some early on in 'the development' have been reportedly in the order of 40% to 60% early on in a months long project.

To compound problems in this development Council management has determined not only just who the stakeholders are but how many of them the will consult confidentially and in-camera at meetings well away from the legitimate gaze of other 'stakeholders' – traders, shoppers, clients, residents, service providers, et al.

Curiously, Council opened an Information Office on site in a attempt to mitigate against problems already compounding upon themselves daily. One wonders where Council is going to set up an office on Westbury Road to handle the traffic problems after the $4000K of ratepayers' money has been spent.

Increasingly. what passes for adequate and appropriate consultation fails at a fundamental level with the aldermen and senior management blissfully unaware of, and apparently unconcerned about, the negative impact Council operations is having upon ratepayers.

AND THEN, there is the issue of Council's gifting of public land to UTas exposing ratepayers to consequent infrastructure expenditures and further unplanned expenditure fiscal imposts.

TAMAR RIVER

ONE HUNDRED YEARS ago the then Port of Launceston Authority wrote to the then Launceston Municipal Council asking the council to: "at the earliest possible date proceed to carry out with all expedition a scheme of sewerage works which will avoid the discharging of all sewage and other matter into the North Esk River and other portions of the Harbour,” (PLA letter March 16 1916). ........................ Ten years ago, 2005, I said “Our Tamar River is dying and alarm bells have been ringing since 1998.” (The Examiner, April 6, 2005). ........................ In 2008, the State of the Tamar Estuary report stated: “Water quality contamination by pathogens (determined by the faecal indicator bacteria streptococci and by faecal coliforms) exceeded recreational primary contact guidelines on a significant number of occasions (20-45 per cent in the middle and upper estuary). ........................ In 2015 NRM North’s Tamar Estuary Report Card, similar to previous report cards, stated that “Overall” the Tamar’s upper reaches “only meet the water quality targets 54 per cent of the time.”. ........................ In 2016 “Tamar River cruises has been forced to cancel ‘dozens’ of trips over the past week due to silt levels”. (The Examiner, March 17 2016). ........................  Even now TasWater prefers to take the easy way out selecting the cheaper option of a secondary sewage treatment plant, instead of the preferred tertiary treatment facility, which will still permit sewage to be discharged in to the Tamar, albeit at a slightly reduced rate; a system which in the long term will inevitably be found wanting. ........................ Past and present political masters of all political persuasions and at all levels of government, TasWater and its predecessors, have consistently ignored numerous warnings and failed to resolve this dilemma. ........................ Tamar degradation has been waiting for over 100 years to be properly addressed and, after waiting so long, it needs to properly attended to with the greatest urgency and with the best available solutions; not band aids. ........................We also need to seriously consider alternative options to the silt raking program (efficient dredging?). ........................While we have good rainfalls raking may be fine but in times of drought the program has shown obvious inadequacies.

Jim Collier, Legana.

EDITOR'S NOTE: The issue of Tamar pollution and the silting of the river is even older than Jim Collier indicates. Launceston has been regarding 'the river' as a open sewer since British colonisation. It is just the case that, as Jim Collier says, the Council said 'opps this is a problem' 100years ago, and along with everyone else, it has been paying little more than lip service to the issues ever since – that is except during the lead up to an election, Local Govt, State or Federal.

After the flurry and hurley burley of the election interest fades spectacularly. If anyone wants to challenge this, then the evidence can easily be found floating in the river and especially so after a rain event'. Jim Collier says it like it is and he's perhaps being a tad restrained.

What is really worrying are the reports of the disconnects between Launceston Council, The Flood Authority (a special committee of Council) and TasWater (a corporate entity collectively owned by Councils) in that Launcestonians' quality of life is being compromised 24/7/365. 

Aside from that, everything Launcestonians' value is diminished and devalued via the status quoism embraced by Council – both the representational and operational wings, successively and serially.

It seems that so long as the salaries with benefits churn continues, and that aldermanic allowances remain unthreatened, and that management plus the political class do their recreation well away from the river, meaningful change is not likely to become a priority any time soon.

Jim Collier has had his hand up offering advice from first-hand experience for a very long time and that he along with many other are serially ignored and left out of the equation demonstrates the contempt that Council holds for anyone who wish to challenge the status quo.

AND THEN, there is the Property Council advocating that Councils forgo their TasWater dividends careless of the fact that ratepayers will almost certainly be required to cover the shortfall via their rate demands. Already, the level of fiscal disconnects evident at Launceston Council is very, very, concerning. 

Ratepayers, who currently pay the highest rates in Tasmania just cannot handle, and aught not be required to, additional rate imposts.

IS LAUNCESTON ACTUALLY A VIABLE PROPOSITIUON?

Examiner Bad Look Story – http://www.examiner.com.au/story/3822938/no-shows-a-bad-look-for-city-council/
Examiner No Go for Distillery Story – http://www.examiner.com.au/story/3821342/no-go-zone-for-whiskey-distillery/
Examiner, Developers Shock Story – http://www.examiner.com.au/story/3823858/developers-shocked-by-knock-back/?cs=12

Launceston’s council, its aldermen and management, apparently regard ‘the constituency’ with a degree of disdain. The post Easter Council meeting was so poorly attended that a quorum was perpetually in jeopardy. As the Property Council said, “this is not a good look”! 

If an alderman was to be ‘caught short’ during deliberations, well the meeting had to stop.  In fact that did happen! And, it happened at Council’s AGM in December 2015 too, and that meeting was ’out of order’, and unnoticed, for about 12 minutes. That wasn’t a ‘good look’ either. 

All the time these aldermen were supposedly considering matters of extreme importance to constituents with matters of interest on the agenda. 

However, it seems that council cum constituency matters are of peripheral importance compared to almost anything else. 

On the evidence, actually mounting evidence, council allowances are so very poor that they just do not justify aldermen actually spending time, well not very much time, considering policy matters on constituents’ behalf. Apparently, it all can be left to management despite management not actually being accountable to the constituency. 

It seems that the ‘aldermanic allowances’ – $34K + expenses – are just not enough to distract aldermen away from their ‘other legitimate interests’. If it’s not possible to get their attention at a scheduled council meeting, just how might a constituent get their attention, and representation, at other times. 

Curiously at this post-Easter meeting there was a development proposal that got to council, and apparently on the advice of  ‘the officers’, and it failed on the depleted aldermanic numbers. [CLICK HERE to read the proponents perspective]

Might the outcome have been different if there had been full attendance? Then a whole range of other questions come to mind, mainly in the area of the quality of decision making at Town Hall. An early one being, just how did this proposal get this far without some kind of aldermanic engagement? 

SECT 8 of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1993 – [LINK] –  tells us that the council’s purpose is to:

• to provide for the health, safety and welfare of the community; 
• to represent and promote the interests of the community; 
•  to provide for the peace, order and good government of the municipal area. 

followed by a full spectrum civic duties and responsibilities. The words “represent and promote the interests of the community” are clearly providing this council, and its constituency, with serious challenges.

Some questions we might ask are:

• Just how often do aldermen meet with constituents in order to understand the issues they are grappling with? In fact, just how accessible are aldermen? 

• Where do aldermen initiate the policy position papers etc. that get to constituents for feedback? 

• Where are the aldermen working with the broad cross section of the community in the cause of encouraging and facilitating enterprise in the community?

•  When and where is council management working in concert with constituents’ representatives to ensure the city’s ongoing prosperity? 

• In fact, are Launcestonians actually getting appropriate bangs for their bucks? 

 With attendance at meetings discretionary, and with accountability discretionary too it seems, why might any serious investor choose this city to invest in? .

If you’re a ‘big time operator’ council will probably be doing headstands and backflips to get your attention. However, if you’re a CBD trader, risk taking entrepreneur or an investor looking for an opportunity to grow a 21st Century idea, or even a business person trying to just stay in business in the 21st Century, in the end, and currently, you’d be well advised, it seems, to look elsewhere – maybe even doing business almost anywhere else that springs to mind. 

However, there is another way to look at 'providing for the health, safety and wellbeing of the community'. It could be considered to be the result of positive action by the Council. In fact, Council could use its powers and ratepayers' money to help the community to achieve better states of living and a sustainable economy. 

So when a new business start-up tries to get ahead and applies to Council for some permission, Council staff together with the aldermen could provide active assistance ... had they tried this approach ... had they talked to their contacts ... had they discovered that a proponent could use some assistance in a particular area ... and so on, outcomes might well be a lot different. 

Taking this kind of action would connect the community and Council more closely and increase the respect in which Council is held. It would also increase the electability of aldermen. .

It seems a pity that all too often Council is in the business of saying "no" to new ideas and presenting legalistic arguments to support their negative approach. Sadly, this presents the unfortunate picture of naysayers - gatekeepers who won't help until the applicants happen on the right approach to suit Council. 

Think of the difference between the two approaches. Which provides the best value for the rate demand? Which would lead to the most positive outcomes for a city like Launceston in the 21st Century?

LOCAL GOVT. AND THE BULLYING ISSUE

The Geelong council is at risk of being sacked in the wake of a 100-page report into the council's alleged bullying culture............. The Commission of Inquiry report, delivered on Thursday to local government minister Natalie Hutchins by head commissioner Terry Moran, reportedly highlights the impacts of bullying and other internal conflicts on the ability of the council to govern the city of more than 220,000 people. Commissioners Mr Moran, Jude Munro and Frances O'Brien were appointed to the inquiry by the state government in December in the wake of a damning report into the council's culture by former Australian Human Rights Commissioner Susan Halliday. At the time of its release, Ms Hutchins said the Halliday report "revealed some deep flaws in the Geelong City Council"............. Ms Halliday's culture review found significant concerns relating to conflicts of interest and bullying behaviour by a number of councillors............. A survey of staff found one in four had been bullied and almost a third had witnessed bullying. Identifying the need for "significantly improved conduct" for cultural change to occur, the report cited cases of rude, sexist and aggressive conduct............. Numerous examples were raised of councillors bullying staff and breaching their code of conduct by interfering with their duties............. Current and ex-staff raised fears of reprisal for speaking out, pointing to the likelihood of unfair treatment and further bullying for "rocking the boat"............. A spokeswoman for Ms Hutchins said details of the Commission's report and the state government's response would be made public when the report was tabled in Parliament later this month. "The report was handed to the minister on Thursday and the first opportunity to table it is on April 12," she said............. "The next step does depend on the content; we will be looking to respond as quickly as possible." Victoria's next council general elections are scheduled for October 22. The state government could elect to appoint administrators to Geelong in the meantime, as occurred at Wangaratta in 2013 and Brimbank in 2009............. Fairfax Media contacted all current councillors but only Peter Murrihy, elected at a by-election last October, responded............. "The sooner we all know what is going to happen the better," he said. "This is the lull before the storm at the moment and we're in the same boat as everyone else waiting to see what will happen."............ As the council's future rests on a knife's edge, financial pressures are adding to the squeeze. Mayor Darryn Lyons announced on Friday the council was applying to the Essential Services Commission for a 1 per cent rate rise above the Victorian Government's 2.5 per cent rate cap on Victorian councils. He said the extra revenue was needed to help wind back debt to allow further borrowing to improve infrastructure............. "Without a 3.5 per cent rate rise, there'll be impacts down the track." Cr Lyons, who became mayor in 2013, said he had no comment to make about the Commission of Inquiry report. "I can't comment on a report that hasn't been released."............ Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/geelong-council-at-risk-of-sack-over-damning-report-into-culture-20160402-gnwqs4.html?utm_