PUBLIC MEETING INVITATION TUES JUNE 7 AT 7PM ALBERT HALL

A WHISTLE BLOWER BLOWS THE WHISTLE ON A WHISTLE BLOWER

WEBSITE

It does seem that the whistle has been blown on this secret if it ever was a secret – ok it seems it was badly kept secret. 

Just why anyone would want to keep this kind of thing a "secret" is hard to imagine as it is very good news. Robyn Archer is a very impressive lady!

Once her appointment is confirmed then Tasmanians will be able to expect that Robin Archer will have a lot of good and interesting things to say about where the QVMAG might go and how. 

The news, if it is news, is welcomed and the only mystery here is why this is imagined as a mystery or even news.

Clerical enthusiast said... 

COMMENT ON ... http://tasratepayers.blogspot.com.au/2016/05/interesting-letters.html

While you may rail against inefficiency, you cannot argue with the appointment of Adelaide footie ambassadress Robyn Archer to conduct a review of museum operations and strategies. Even our boss, Albert van Snooze, is going to sit up and take notice when Robyn gets on the job. Await fireworks.

Jack Bower

BIG TROUBLE IN GEORGE TOWN

George Town councillor 

Richard Nicholls 

removed from office

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE IN THE EXAMINER

Interesting Letters

CLICK HERE

Tamar silt TO THE expert opinions of the silt problem of the Tamar, the only way to fix this is to bring back dredging of the river...... There is a channel running from Kings Wharf to Rosevears which was designed to get large ships up river in the early 1900’s...... Dredge the channel, which acts as a sump in which any sludge or sediment sinks to the bottom...... Dredging is the only way to clean up this slop, while extra water down the Gorge is only a waste with an incoming tide...... The Trevallyn Dam was built for two reasons -..... Hydro power To stop Invermay flooding. Blow the dam out and watch Invermay sink...... To all politicians - keep the money from useless submarines and build a hi-tech dredge and watch the river change complexion...... As for the sludge, dump it in Bass Strait, the current will soon purify it and to dam the river, what a laugh. ..... J. Wheldon, Kings Meadows

 Funding I WOULD encourage Bass MHR Andrew Nikolic to closely examine what has been achieved with the mud raking. I would suggest zero. This is nothing more than an exercise of endeavouring to garner support. ..... It is a waste of money to try and convince the community that the raking program has provided real benefit. ..... It could not be further from the truth, the mud may travel down to Tamar Island then it returns. To spend $500,000 a year on a self defeating exercise is wrong. Save the money and put it towards the new Ti Tree Bend tertiary plant. ..... Ted Sands, Launceston City Council.

Launceston Council Questioned In Regard To QVMAG Governance And Management

The Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery (QVMAG) is a major cost centre for Launceston City Council. Consequently a significant and largely unidentified component of Launcestonians' rates is for the recurrent costs relative to the management of the institution.

Effectively the most significant component of the institution's total recurrent budget is conscripted from Launceston ratepayers in form of a hidden levy. Many ratepayers do not read the QVMAG' ANNUAL REPORTS [LINK] or its policies [LINK] but they should.

Some interesting facts to be gleaned from QVMAG reporting:

• Ratepayer contributions via their rates is in the order of $4million which amounts to approx $140 per rateable property;
• The institution earns very little via its activities and services;
• The rate/tax payer subsidy per visitor visits is in the order of $50 compared with say approx $5 for the Aquatic Centre;
• The institution is a significant employer in the region;
• The institution holds in its collections material valued something in the order of $230million plus that are arguably a significant component of the national estate; and
• The institution lacks a standalone governing body to ensure its accountability to taxpayers, ratepayers, sponsors, donors and other funding agencies.

At the ordinary Council meeting scheduled for May 23 Ray Norman [LINK] submitted the following questions without notice to Launceston Council in regard to the Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery (LINK). 

A) Given that it was nine months ago in August 2015 that Council approved five (5) recommendations in respect to the Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery being:

1/ That QVMAG Strategic Plan 2012‐2107, including its guiding vision, is reviewed to ensure best alignment with the Strategic Themes of the CoL Strategic Plan 2014 and the recommendations in this report. 

2/ That beneficial alignments with other Tasmanian museums and galleries be explored in the interests of seeking overall efficiency and equity in use of State Government funds. 

3/ That an evaluation of QVMAG be commissioned that demonstrates its economic, social and environmental value to its community and the special contribution it makes to the educational, intellectual, human, social and natural capital of its community. 

4/ That options for establishment of an independent skills‐based Board of Governance be investigated and the best option implemented. 

5/ That the organizational structure of CoL be reviewed and measures be implemented to more effectively leverage opportunities and pool resources across complementary business units. 

Therefore, will Council please provide an up to date report on the implementation of these five (5) recommendation and the details of progress thus far? Moreover, will council please provide all information relevant to the circumstances germane to:.

• The apparent delay in implementing Council’s recommendations of August 2015 ? and 

• The expected date upon which Council will receive the report/s? and 

•  Any outcomes thus far relevant this overall review process? 

B) Given that there are variously substantiated reports that a high profile consultant has been commission to report on the QVMAG, will Council now: 

1/ Identify the consultant; and 

2/ Publish a copy of her/his brief; 

In the interest of openness and transparency relative to the governance and management of significant component of the City of Launceston’s operation and budget? 

C) Will Council please provide: 

1/ A list of all the acquisitions made by the QVMAG for its collections thus in the current financial year; and: 

2/ A list of all the items in the QVMAG’s collections that have been disposed of or deaccessioned in the current financial year? 

 I look forward with considerable interest to receiving the information requested. 

 Regards, Ray Norman

Basil Fitch Holds Launceston Council To Account

CLICK HERE: Questions Without Notice - Launceston Council Meeting 23 May 2016 

Basil Fitch congratulate the Mayor in bringing Mayors of surrounding councils in the northern area to a MOU to support the proposed UTas move to Inveresk and Willis Street. Furthermore he notes that there are consequences to this outcome and he thus poses a series of questions to Council. LCC News will be watching the outcome of Mr. Fitch's questioning very carefully!

In fact ratepayers should follow Mr Fitch's lead and ask aldermen questions without notice in open council since it seems aldermen are not asking questions of management and the press is giving the council and it management a 'glory ride'.  

Go back and search online and just look at what The Examiner (Click Here) has been reporting. Perhaps more importantly, if you have the time, dredge back through council minutes to see to what extent aldermen, your representatives, are giving council management petty much a free ride. Likewise, take a look at the Consultant' Report on LCC News [Link] and think about council's actual accountability.

LAUNCESTON'S CARGO CULT ECONOMIC PARADIGM

In a chapter of Nobel prize winning physicist Richard Feynman’s book Surely You’re Joking Mr. Feynman! he talks about junk science and relates it to a South Seas tribal phenomena known as the cargo cult.

In the South Seas where this cargo cult of people wait for money and wealth to just fly in, and the myth survives even if it does not thrive. During WW2 they saw airplanes land with lots of good materials, and they want the same thing to keep on happening now. If only.

In the South Seas they’ve arranged to imitate things like runways, to put fires along the sides of the runways, to make a wooden hut for a man to sit in, with two wooden pieces on his head like headphones and bars of bamboo sticking out like antennas.

In the South Seas he’s the controller and the people, well they wait for the airplanes to land. They’re doing everything absolutely right. The form is absolutely perfect. It all looks exactly the way it used to but planes do not fly in. No airplanes land, no wealth from elsewhere, no money from the heavens.

All this is cargo cult science and because the people follow all that was before and all the forms of scientific investigation to boot, yet they’re missing something essential, because, on the evidence, their planes just don’t land anymore.

Its like this, rather than understanding and initiating the fundamental cause of some effect the cargo cult imitates the form of the causal process in the hope that it will bring them the actual effect but the planes just do not land anymore.

CLICK HERE TO TO SOURCE

In the South Seas the islanders created an imitation airport in the hopes that the plane would fly in with goods and money. In the same way, Launceston's council is fabricating faux runways.

Keynesian economists are a lot like cargo cult economists and there are even more extreme, and dumber, economic belief systems.  We hear the Keynesian doctrine that in order to restore economic prosperity, we must encourage spending even when you are not buying much of anything. If only people and governments would spend we will be OK.

In the USA lowering interest rates to zero in order to encourage lending is an idea that goes under the banner of being a plan.  Of course the money for these programs will be created out of thin air by the 'The Banks' when they borrow securities with fake money. Have your heard this stuff before?

In a barter economy, people just would not think to offer nothing for something that they actually want. They actually offer something that they own or have created. Nothing actually changes when we introduce a 'medium of exchange' – money – to simplify the exchange. To be able to spend money, you must actually produce something  – a good, a service of value – and offer it as a value for a value exchange.

Put another way, spending or “demand” is an outcome of production. Your demand is your supply which is in essence 'Say’s Law' – the law of markets, In classical economics the aggregate production necessarily creates an equal quantity of aggregate demand. Jean-Baptiste Say told us that in 1803 and so so many in local government just do not have a grasp of this basic economic principal

Just look at the cargo cult economists in local government as they look for the silver bird to fly in and shower them with money and goodies from the heavens. They've built the runways, chanted the right words, shook the right hands and put on the right cloths etc. But will the planes land?

When governments print paper money and they offer it to other governments, local government included, and in turn the paper dollars are offered for goods and services, it appears that someone has actually produced wealth and that they are exchanging it for something of equal value. Its a fair question to ask in the current circumstance, does this look like anything to be seen in local government right now? And do the services have value ... actual value ... real value?

After all, in the past, when the paper was backed by real wealth (gold), it was understood that there was a lot of paper money around. Just as the cargo cults fabricated control towers and runways in the hope that it would bring in real goods, and for nothing, in the same way cargo cult economists believe that by creating paper money and that its real and its real wealth. It has to be real because its printed with fancy ink on fancy plastic and its got large numbers printed on it.

Just like it is where the planes don’t land for the South Sea islanders, local government in Tasmania local government look to fly in money to fund pretend projects that the people will buy if only we can build them bigger and bigger still – anyway that seems to be the plan.

I'm sorry, I must go now. I'm creating a new shopping centre with someone else's money to compete with the old one, and I have to check to see how much money is flowing in so far and after that I must see who I might sell it to.

Tanda Vale, Cynical Economics

IS LOCAL GOVERNMENT TURNING INTO A LAWYER'S PICINIC

CLICK HERE TO GO TO SOURCE

"THE final report produced by the board of inquiry into the Huon Valley Council should be thrown out because of inaccuracies that could lead to legal action being taken, says a senior councillor.

Mike Wilson told the Mercury he believed there was a hidden agenda behind the board of inquiry investigation.

“I believe the Government may want to see amalgamations and maybe this is just a scapegoat to start that process,” Cr Wilson said.

“As far as I’m concerned, I’ll lead the people of the Huon Valley down the main streets of Hobart to stop that sort of thing.”

The council held a closed meeting last night to discuss an updated report from the board of inquiry and its response.

The council and councillors have until Tuesday to make a submission to Local Government Minister Peter Gutwein.

“My submission has been done through my legal representation to let the minister know that if certain things were not taken out of that report that we will be taking further action,” Cr Wilson said.

“The report as it stands is flawed in so many ways. There’s been a lot of money spent on this, which the ratepayers are paying for, and there are parts of it that are certainly not factual. It should be thrown out.

“How much longer is this going to go on for? This council is functioning very well fin­ancially and on a daily basis.”

Mayor Peter Coad declared a conflict of interest at last night’s meeting in relation to the report produced by the council’s lawyers that responded to the board of inquiry’s report.

“I think the board’s report is a very good report — it’s well balanced, very thorough and the people involved in putting it together have done an excellent job,” Cr Coad said.

“I hope the minister makes the report available in full to the community.

“[But] I don’t believe my colleagues share my view.”

Mr Gutwein would not say if he had received letters from Cr Wilson’s legal representation and what action might be taken. "

NOW TODAY:  Huon Valley Council shake-up expected in wake of shock board of inquiry report

GO TO THE MERCURY STORY_ Click Here

AN inquiry into the warring Huon Valley Council is expected to recommend it be placed in administration for a year, as calls emerge for the council to be forced to discuss mergers and resource sharing.

The final report produced by the State Government’s board of inquiry into the council was discussed by councillors at a meeting on Thursday night.

But details of the report, which have already prompted talk of legal action from one councillor, are being kept under wraps.

However, the Mercury has been told the report has made a recommendation to place the council into administration for 12 months – six months longer than the original draft board of inquiry report and nine months longer than many councillors had hoped for.

On Monday night Kingborough councillors will vote on a motion by Dean Winter urging Local Government Minister Peter Gutwein to get Huon to discuss resource sharing and mergers with its neighbouring council.

“I think Kingborough is doing that by taking an open-minded approach to the issue.

“But for Huon Valley to refuse to even take part in the process – that’s very disappointing for their ratepayers.

“Unfortunately, it’s clear the dysfunction at Huon Valley Council is preventing it from making good decisions.

“If Minister Gutwein can intervene, then I think he should.”

Huon Valley Mayor Peter Coad yesterday said he supported the push for discussions with Kingborough Council.

“My personal position is that you support local government reform and I would strongly support councils in that process,” Mr Coad said.

“Obviously at the moment the council is going through a board of inquiry and I think that has to take precedence over everything else at the moment.”

The Question Of Launceston Council's Mandate

Its a somewhat sobering exercise to look back at the mandate won by Launceston's aldermen at the last election when there was a spill of all positions and where the mandate runs until 2018. 

Clearly, if there were to be an election this year for half the council, as was once the case, one might imagine that some aldermen might well be modifying their behaviors in regard to some matters. The question of a mandate, and for what, is an interesting one. It is interesting in so much as it goes to both accountability and the representational role of a council and by extension individual aldermen.

Various commentators have claimed that the number of signatures on the Citizens' Petition  – almost 1,500 and authorized signatories falling comfortably over the 1,000 – "is insignificant". In the context of local government in Launceston. The council's mandate to operate unilaterally is very much open to contention and it is hard to see upon what basis it is imagined that there is in fact a mandate to do so.

The first observation to be made is that, as an alderman, the mayor has a clear and arguably an unassailable  aldermanic mandate. However his mandate as mayor is open to contention given that he hold the post on a touch under 46% of first preferences that translates to 50.20% after preferences – hardly a clear mandate. 

The deputy mayor's position is a quite different issue in that three candidates drew less than 30% of first preferences and the winning candidate scoring just over 50% after preferences were distributed to win the post – again hardly a mandate.

Of the all aldermen, after the mayor, only two received more 1,500 first preference votes and only five of the remaining aldermen received more than 1,000 first preference votes – hardly the basis for a claim that in comparison to the petitioners they collectively hold some kind of authoritative mandate.

The remaining three aldermen with significantly less that 1,000 first preferences should be paying very close attention to their constituency rather than teaming up with some issue based cabal or other to claim a supposed mandate – something for which no grouping could realistically claim that they had won in regard to so many issues upon which council asserts its authority.

All in all the numbers offer nothing much upon which hubristic claims of a mandate might be asserted. Rather the numbers point to council needing to work quite diligenently in order to operate within an inclusive, consultative and representational framework towards winning a community social license to govern.

 CLICK ON AN IMAGE TO ENLARGE

http://www.tec.tas.gov.au/LocalGovernmentElections2014/2014LGResults/LauncestonCity.html

Review: The QVMAG's 'The World Inside" 125th Anniversary Exhibition

LINK TO THE ESSAY: http://qvmagelephant.blogspot.com.au/

City of Launceston Public Meeting Submission

This correspondence has been forwarded to:

• The Mayor for his action; and 
• Minister Gutwein for his information

Forwarded Message

From: M (Name removed for privacy reasons)

Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 13:24:54 +1000

Subject: A submission to Council re: public meeting

Just a line to say what a Lonnie ratepayer like me is thinking.

The public meeting was called due to a successful petition by community members that wanted an explanation (better a discussion) on why specifically the Council offered to gift millions of dollars of public assets, in the form of land, to a wealthy and successful university when so many  ratepayers were struggling financially. Another question is why no apparent attempt to canvass other means of disposing of the land that offered greater ratepayer benefits (e.g. tenders) as made.

Council is quick to put up rates, but it seems very reluctant to include ratepayers in proposals that could advantage Council staff and executives with other government groups by dispensing favours and that could disadvantage ratepayers financially.

Public concerns are not about whether UTas should move to the city, they are about Council gifting public assets without ratepayer involvement.

Petitioners, I think, therefore would want a meeting which clarifies why Council decided to gift ratepayer/public assets without seeking tenders or similar; and that demonstrates that advantages to Council staff cannot be achieved in this way.

Cheers,

M

LAUNCESTON COUNCIL PUBLIC MEETING NOTICE

The City of Launceston 

will hold a 
PUBLIC MEETING
@

 7pm on Tuesday 
7 June 2016 

Albert Hall

Corner of Tamar and Cimitiere Streets, Launceston. 

This meeting is being held following a petition seeking a public meeting being lodged with the Council. Subject matter of the public meeting As described by the petition, the subject matter of the public meeting will be: 

1. That the Launceston City Council call a Public Meeting for the purpose of discussing the Council's decision to transfer (free gift) land, known as Willis Street Car Park and Old Velodrome. 
2. Call on Council to rescind the motion passed by the Full Council Meeting 9th November 2015 to transfer said land (free gift) to UTAS. 
3. That the said land be placed for sale on the open market via a public auction with a Reserve Price of $5 million. 

You may wish to use this form to make a written submission to the General Manager in respect of the subject matter explained below.

Written submissions must be lodged with Council by 5pm Wednesday 1 June 2016.

You may use a Council form to make your written submission but that is not compulsory.
Options for lodging your submission:

• Print and complete this form, and return it via email, post or in person. 
• If you do not wish to use the Council form, your written submission will be accepted by email, post or in person. 

City of Launceston's contact details are provided at the bottom of this page.

Remember that your submission must be received by 5pm Wednesday 1 June 2016. 

At the public meeting Submissions will be summarised by the General Manager and will be made available to people who attend the public meeting. Your name and contact details will not be included in the summary.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE COUNCIL FORM

When making your own submission LCC News would appreciate it if you:

1. Make your submission by eMAIL to City of Launceston General Manager 

• Robert Dobrzynski  Robert.Dobrzynski@launceston.tas.gov.au

2. Please copy your submission to  

      LAUNCESTON PROJECTS –  launcestonprojects@bigpond.com 

     So that your submission can be put on this website for the information of others making submissions

3. At the top of your submission please provide your contact details and the date submitted 

•  Unit/street number: 
• Street name: 
• Suburb:                   State:            Postcode: 
• Daytime phone number: 
• Email address: 

• Council may wish to use this information to contact you if they have a question about your submission        OR
• LCC News may wish to contact you with additional information relevant to the meeting

Section 60A(2) of the Local Government Act 1993 (Tas) (the Act) requires Council to:

(a) publish a notice on at least 2 occasions in a daily newspaper circulating in the municipal area; and 

(b) send to the person who lodged the petition. 

The notice will be published for a second time in the Examiner on Saturday 14 May 2016.

The actions taken by Council in relation to the public meeting are directed at meeting the legislative requirements as set out in the Act.

LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Federal Funding For UTas Move To L'ton CBD

Federal Treasurer Scott Morrison is correct in his statement over funding for the proposed move to Inveresk that there are more pressing issues in Tasmania  whilst canvassing in Braddon on Tuesday and again on Wednesday when he quite correctly advised the appropriate Minister will address the issue.

The writer would venture to say the Minister for Education Senator Birmingham is likely to say Launceston has a University at an open space facility  in close proximity to the city and a very convenient shopping precint.

Inveresk has inherrent problems with traffic management and very major infrastructure problem over an inadequate sewage an storm water problem due to Launceston City Council deviating from upgrading the sewage and storm water system which was a priority by the council in the 1980.s and early 1990,s which requires at least 500 million dollars to rectify now.

When Prime Minister Turnbull was Minister for Enviroment in the Howard Government a committment was made to assist states to move to a combined water sewage authority the state minister Michael Aird moved on this commitment and three bodies were formed , however the Howard Government lost the election , it has been normal practice for incoming governments to honour that commitment.

The Rudd Government did not and instead gave the country the failed pink batts programme .

Aspiring Labor candidate Ross Hart would have grounds for a move to Inveresk had the capital works for sewage infrastructure been a reality.

Because of economic restraint Minister Morris is correct Tasmania has more pressing problems.

Brian P. Khan

WHY SO MANY SIGNATURES REJECTED??

In reply to a request for information regarding the large number of rejected signatures Ray Norman, the petition's authoriser, received the following information and explanation.

"Thank you for your email. I can advise:

• Section 59(2) of the Local Government Act 1993 (Tas) (the Act) requires that council must hold a public meeting if the petition is signed by (a) 5% of the electors in the municipal area; or (b) 1,000 of those electors (whichever is the lesser).
• If the above is not met, Council may still resolve to hold a public meeting regarding the subject matter of the petition, as provided for in section 60(3) of the Act.
• The purpose of verifying the number of signatures to the petition was to inform Council whether the public meeting must be held, or whether the public meeting required a resolution of Council to proceed.
• For section 59(2) to apply, it was necessary for Council officers to verify the number of electors in the municipal area that signed the petition.
• We obtained a copy of the electoral roll for the Launceston Municipality as at 31 January 2016, from the Tasmanian Electoral Office.
• Council officers checked the signatories to the petition against the electoral roll.
  

        • 273 names could either not be found in the electoral roll, or the name and address on the petition could not be matched to a name and address in the electoral roll
         • 38 entries were duplicates
         • 14 entries were not legible
         • 17 entries had no name
         • 22 entries had no address
         • 1 entry was on a piece of paper that did not have a heading as required by section 57(2)(b) of the Act
         • The letter provided as a cover to the petition specified 1,493/1,492 signatures; Council officers counted 1,495 signatures. The above entries were deducted from 1,495 to        arrive at 1,130 validated signatures (i.e. 1,495 - 273 - 38 - 14 - 17 - 22 - 1 = 1,130)
         • Signatures were considered individually i.e. we did not reject a whole sheet if a signature failed for any reason; any entries on a page that were able to be validated were counted as validated signatures."

PETITION PROGRESS