PETITION: Letter to Ratepayers and Supporters

Dear Ratepayers and supporters,

Thank you to those who signed the original petition requesting that Launceston City Council convene a Public Meeting to discuss the gifting of the land at Inveresk (the old Velodrome cycling track site next to York Park Stadium) and the Willis Street public car park site (the old Goods Railyard on the opposite side of the North Esk River)  and who were able to attend the Public Meeting that was finally concluded last week on 21st June at Albert Hall. 

The 132 members of the public attending the Public Meeting overwhelmingly opposed the gifting of the land  to the University, compared to less than 10 of those who were willing to vote AGAINST the Motions put to the meeting.

Since the Meeting, The Examiner Newspaper (who has admitted publicly its bias in supporting the move by UTas to Inveresk) received 138 Facebook comments, all opposing the proposal. That level of comment to a media Facebook story is extraordinary!

Unfortunately, Launceston City Council is not obliged to accept the outcome of the Public Meeting, and we are sure that LCC will continue to progress the gifting of the 2 pieces of land to UTas.

However, the Local Government Act 1993 allows for petitioners to proceed to sign a SECOND PETITION, once a Public Meeting has been held on the topic, this time requesting LCC to facilitate an ELECTOR POLL of all Launceston people on the Launceston Elector Roll.

A minimum of 1000 elector signatures (we aim for say, 1500 so as to ensure its validity) must be collected and presented by 20 July 2016. 

We expect this will be a major undertaking in such a short time, however, with your assistance, we hope we can succeed.

If you are able to print off the Petition Form, then we ask that you:

• email LauncestonPR@bigpond.com asking for the PDF Form;
• sign the form and encourage as many friends and acquaintances on the Launceston Roll, to do likewise. 
• post original copies ack to our collection point (P.O. Box 513 Launceston 7250); OR
• simply drop them into my letterbox at 41 High Street, when you are passing. 
• You may also like to send a copy of the Petition to your friends, by email.

If you do not have printing facilities, please ask me for copie(s) to be forwarded to you.
In the meantime, here are a few ‘dot’ points to summarise last Tuesday night’s Public Meeting:

• Criticism of Council’s lack of due diligence, including construction problems/costs and issues with developing on the flood plains of the North Esk River and potential seismic risks
• The track record of UTas in consistently chipping away at the Launceston campus making it but a shadow of what it was 20 years ago. There is no confidence this pattern will change
• 10,000 PLUS extra students can’t be guaranteed. It is an aspirational figure based on demographics not fact, and a fraud to say that is the kind of figure that will eventuate from this proposal
• Absence of support by electors
• Risk of UTas plan not fully eventuating or finding success – the punt
• Reliance on trust versus a properly defined and proven business plan
• The Northern Campuses remaining lesser branches of UTas without the ability of independent initiatives to remain sustainable
• Traffic congestion and parking inadequacies for UTas and other users of the precinct
• We need a uniquely Northern campus independent of UTas 

Please do not hesitate to contact me should you like to discuss your position on this land give away, or have any ideas on how we may further engage with Launceston Electors in relation to this matter.


If you are concerned about the high level of LCC Rates that you are being required to pay, and at how LCC spends your hard-earned money, then please sign the Petition. Council’s valuation of these two pieces of land is $4.5M and apart from the loss of this significant sum that would lessen the Launceston rate burden, the land currently produces a healthy income to Council that helps offset rates paid by its citizens. Once this becomes University owned, not even rates are payable.

Many thanks,

Regards,

Lionel Morrell
President
Tasmanian Ratepayers Association Inc.
41 High Street
Launceston TAS  7250
T  03 6331 6144
e  li82303@bigpond.net.au

A MODEL COUNCIL: newDemocracy and Eurobodalla Shire

In Moruya, and Eurobodalla Shire Council their council is seeking 24 residents to form a "Citizen Jury" to determine the council's community program.

A newDemocracy group will randomly select jurors to meet a legislative obligation to show that it engaging with the community.

Eurobodalla Shire has a population of around 35,000 and includes the town of Moruya in the central part of the Shire. Other major towns in the shire include Batemans Bay Narooma, Durras, Bodalla, Wallaga Lake and Koori Village.

By way of comparison, Launceston's population is approx. 67.000 , Burnie approx 19,000 and there are 211,656 people living in the greater Hobart area.

The exercise that Eurobodalla Shire  is embarked upon is expected to cost $100,000. Council’s staff and councillors will not know who is selected until the first jury meeting, which will be after the NSW's September local government elections. 

Jurors will be paid for their time, which includes attending six meetings on weekdays and weekends over a two-and-a-half-month period.

Meetings will be chaired by a member of the newDemocracy Foundation and any member of the public can write a submission or present to the jury.

The process involves jury members exploring the work council does to consider questions like:

• Is Council spending ratepayers money appropriately? 
• Is Council allocating its resources to the right things?
• If not, what should we change?” 

newDemocracy executive director Iain Walker has said. “By matching to the census profile, we get people from all age groups and all walks of life and a 50/50 mix of gender." 

The council’s general manager Dr Catherine Dale is reported as saying that the jury would decide what they believed should be priorities for council in the future. 

 Dr Dale the cost was in line with what has been spent previously. “It is money well spent,” she said. 

This is a really innovative way to seek the communities views. It is an open and transparent process. “It is important for the community to appreciate that the integrity to the project is paramount to having the right outcome.”

It is reported that Eurobodalla Shire Council is at a critical juncture in its long term planning. 

Having sought and received approval for a special rate variation in 2015 to ensure ongoing financial sustainability, and with the upcoming election of a new Council scheduled for September 2016, it is judicious for the organisation to take stock and consider whether it is meeting the needs and expectations of its community. .... CLICK HERE TO READ MORE

CLICK HERE TO ACCESS THIS DOCUMENT

SUMMARY: Public Meeting Albert Hall June 21

Here are a few ‘dot’ points to summarise Tuesday night’s Public Meeting:

•  Criticism of Council’s lack of due diligence, including construction problems/costs and issues with developing on the flood plains of the North Esk River and potential seismic risks 

• The track record of UTas in consistently chipping away at the Launceston campus making it but a shadow of what it was 20 years ago. There is no confidence this pattern will change 

• 10,000 PLUS extra students can’t be guaranteed. It is an aspirational figure based on demographics not fact, and a fraud to say that is the kind of figure that will eventuate from this proposal 

• Absence of support by electors 

• Risk of UTas plan not fully eventuating or finding success – the punt

•  Reliance on trust versus a properly defined and proven business plan 

• The Northern Campuses remaining lesser branches of UTas without the ability of independent initiatives to remain sustainable 

• Traffic congestion and parking inadequacies for UTas and other users of the precinct 

•  We need a uniquely Northern campus independent of UTas 

POST PUBLIC MEETING ASSESSMENT

CLICK HERE FOR LIONEL MORRELL'S SUBMISSION

The Examiner today gave a reasonably basic account of the meeting but as always there'll be arguments about the numbers [SEE THE EXAMINER] yet the thing is that Council had minuscule support in the room.  

The council's position of unequivocal and uncritical acceptance of the UTas proposition – albeit unsupported by any compelling evidence – is concerning.

It is somewhat concerning when the aldermen are left to represent themselves when they do not appear to be representing their constituency. Aldermen leave themselves open to unwelcomed speculation – warranted, unwarranted, scurrilous, substantiated, whatever – and that does not serve the community at all well.

The main point to be made here is that Council is a long way from claiming anything that looks like a consensus on this issue and possibly other issues too.

Dr Powell presented the meeting with a passionate account of the risks both the council and the university face in an era of change. Likewise his account of how the UTas northern campus had been "asset stripped" pointed to deep inequities in regard to the delivery of post-secondary education and training in the Tamar region.

Furthermore, he said that the 10,000 plus additional students can’t be guaranteed and is an aspirational figure only based on demographics, not facts, hence it is a fraud to say that figure will eventuate from this proposal.

Council claimed a majority of aldermen support their decision but that's hardly representational governance or anything like the good governance the Minister Gutwein is looking for in his guidance on Local Govt. and to quote that guide ... “Good governance is accountable; Good governance is transparent; Good governance is law-abiding; Good governance is responsive;  Good governance is equitable; Good governance is participatory and inclusive; Good governance is effective and efficient; Good governance is consensus oriented “ 

On the consensus count, in regard to the gifting of land, 'consensus' seems to have eluded Launcestonians. It also appears that the council believes that ratepayers and residents need to have decision making imposed upon them rather than bringing them on board in a consensus wherever possible. 

It's sad reflection that it takes the expenditure of so much effort on the part of a council, and the community, to have any kind of conversation about an issue that impacts quite heavily upon the whole community. 

Looking forward, if the council wishes to promote an active economy in the city, better still in the region, it needs to establish transparent and 21st Century collaborative and cooperative arrangements with institutions, business, collectives, etc. That will require a paradigm shift.

CLICK HERE To read the comments the Examiner's reporting drew

As if one petition wasn't enough, there's another on the way

CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO ENLARGE

Launceston has given its ratepayer a 1.9% rate rise but it appears as if 'the council' sees itself as an empire rather than a service provider. 

At no time soon are ratepayers likely to see open accountability for council's spending just so long as the current Local Govt Act is the guiding light.

The Act is overly complex, outdated, riddled with ambiguities and is arguably no longer 'fit for purpose' in a 21st Century context.

Likewise the council's accounts are far from being transparent or easy to read. If ratepayers wish to delve into 'council affairs' in the way they might for a corporation they have shares in ... forget it! Asking for information on financial matters is ever likely to get you nowhere – or into an unrewarding confrontation if you persist.

For instance, SECTIONS 65 and 62 of 'the Act' give rise to much consternation and despite its apparent good intention in 1993, in 2016 they offer a great many constituents little or no comfort despite the Minister's recent  GOOD GOVERNANCE GUIDE. The effectiveness of 'the guide' is yet to be proven.

The State government's 'experiment' in all-in-all-out four year councils seemed a good idea at the time but it has done nothing for 'aldermanic accountability' let alone accountability in its wider context.

Ald. McKenzie's push for the collection of rates from the residents of properties owned by charitable organisations has raised the ire of people living in retirement villages etc. 

These ratepayers see themselves as being vulnerable and the prospect of their being "targets" is clearly not being welcomed. Its not for the first time that they've seen themselves as targets.

On Tuesday June 21 there is to be a postponed Public Meeting is being held in Albert Hall arising out of the council's decision to gift land to UTas. [CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION]

More information can be gleaned from recent entries on LCC News [LINK] relative to the petition that is now being circulated in regard to Ald. McKenzie's 'charitable institution rate push'.

REFERENCES:

• Retirement villages rates report for Launceston Council CLICK HERE 
• City of Launceston council passes rates changes CLICK HERE
• Charitable institutions rates motion CLICK HERE

THE GOOD GOVERNANCE GUIDE FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN TASMANIA

Minister Gutwein and his department are to be congratulated on this publication and the guidance it provides to Tasmania's alderpersons and councillors. The guide's publication is timely!

For some time many constituents in Tasmania have been confused about, and somewhat bemused by, the apparent schisms between their understandings of local governance and the messages they have been getting from 'their council'. 

All so often councils looks like they belong to someone else and for whatever reason it looks as tough ‘the council’ is doing someone else's bidding.

The perception that “the tail is wagging the dog” is unhelpful and not conducive to good governance and good representational outcomes.  The perception that councils’ operational wings are beyond the reach of functional accountability is not only unhelpful but it also poses a raft of uncomfortable questions.

This document provides a reference that should clarify relationships between council constituencies and local governance. CLICK HERE TO ACCESS THE DOCUMENT ONLINE

The Good Governance Guide has been produced as a resource for Tasmanian local government elected members. It aims to: help build a better understanding of, promote and enhance good governance in local government. 

The 'guid' is founded on the premise that local government plays a critical role in Tasmania in that councils: 

• help to build resilient communities;
• contribute to the development of a healthy environment; and 
• promote local economies. 

Good governance is critical to local government’s success in carrying out these roles.

THE DOCUMENT'S CONTENTS – ABOUT GOOD GOVERNANCE ••••••• WHAT IS GOOD GOVERNANCE? ••••••• WHAT ARE THE MAIN CHARACTERISTICS OF GOOD GOVERNANCE? ••••••• 8 WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS OF GOOD GOVERNANCE? ••••••• 10 WHAT DOES GOOD GOVERNANCE MEAN IN PRACTICE? ••••••• 13 HIGH ETHICAL STANDARDS •••••••  15 UNDERSTANDING YOUR ROLE ••••••• 24 BUILDING POSITIVE RELATIONSHIPS ••••••• 41 EFFECTIVE STRATEGIC PLANNING AND MONITORING PERFORMANCE ••••••• 8 ROBUST RISK MANAGEMENT ••••••• 58 FAIR AND TRANSPARENT DECISION MAKING ••••••• 64 LEGISLATIVE COMPLIANCE ••••••• 83 CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT  ••••••• 84 PRACTICING GOOD GOVERNANCE?  ••••••• 86 PRACTICING GOOD GOVERNANCE AS AN INDIVIDUAL ••••••• 88 PRACTICING GOOD GOVERNANCE AS A COUNCIL  ••••••• 92 GOOD GOVERNANCE AND LAND-USE PLANNING ••••••• 97 YOUR ROLE AS PART OF A PLANNING AUTHORITY ••••••• 99 RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN PLANNING AUTHORITIES AND STAKEHOLDERS  ••••••• 00 DECISION MAKING AS PART OF A PLANNING AUTHORITY ••••••• 101 COMPLYING WITH RELEVANT LEGISLATION  ••••••• 103 STRATEGIC LAND-USE PLANNING  ••••••• 104 SUMMARY OF LINKS AND RESOURCES ••••••• 105 FURTHER INFORMATION  ••••••• 105 CONTRIBUTORS  •••••••  105 GLOSSARY

WHAT ARE THE MAIN CHARACTERISTICS OF GOOD GOVERNANCE? 

Good governance has eight major characteristics

1. Good governance is accountable 

Accountability is a fundamental requirement of good governance. Local government has an obligation to report, to explain and to be answerable for the consequences of decisions it has made on behalf of the community it represents and serves. 

2. Good governance is transparent 

People should be able to follow and understand the decision making process. This means that they are able to clearly see how and why a decision was made – what information, advice and consultation a council considered, and which legislative requirements (when relevant) a council followed. 

3. Good governance is law-abiding 

Decisions must be consistent with relevant legislation or common law, and be within the powers of local government. In Tasmania, the principal legislation for local government is the Local Government Act 1993 (the Act). There are two sets of regulations relating to the Act which you should consult: the Local Government (General) Regulations 2015 and the Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2015. The section on Legislative Compliance provides details of other relevant legislation. 

4. Good governance is responsive 

Local government should always try to represent and serve the needs of the entire community while balancing competing interests in a timely, appropriate and responsive manner. 

5. Good governance is equitable 

A community’s wellbeing depends on all of its members feeling that their interests have been considered by their council in the decision making process. All groups, particularly the most vulnerable, should have opportunities to participate in the decision making process, and all groups should be treated equally by their council. 

6. Good governance is participatory and inclusive 

Anyone affected by, or interested in, a decision should have the opportunity to participate in the process for making that decision. Participation can happen in several ways – community members may be provided with information, asked for their opinion, given the opportunity to make recommendations or, in some cases, be part of the actual decision making process. 

7. Good governance is effective and efficient Local government should implement decisions and follow processes that make the best use of the available people, resources and time, to ensure the best possible results for their community. 

8. Good governance is consensus oriented 

Wherever possible, good governance involves taking into account the different views and interests in a municipality to reach a majority position on what is in the best interests of the whole community, and how it can be achieved. 

CLICK HERE TO GO TO THE GOOD GOVERNANCE GUIDE ONLINE 

UTAS AND POLITICS: Look what fell of the truck

If anyone was ever in doubt regarding the UTas move to shift campuses, or that it has a political dimension given the current election campaigning, then right now it seems that there is none. 

Any proposal that calls upon 'The Public Purse' to deliver hundreds of millions of dollars must bump up against competing claims and aspirations. If it gets a tad political, then do not be surprised if someone has their snout in the trough. It has ever been thus!

Read these documents to gain some kind of perspective, your own perspective, on the 'political dimension' that has pertained, and that is attaching itself to, "the UTas proposal" to move its campuses and develop new programs.

If you wish to inform yourself and draw your own conclusions relative to where this all going, and why, then these documents and the link below may help you out.

CLICK ON AN IMAGE TO ENLARGE

 CLICK HERE TO READ RELATED DOCUMENTS

HAS THE MINISTER FAILED TO JOIN THE DOTS? IT'S YOUR CALL!

CLICK HERE TO GO TO SOURCE

LINK TO MINISTER'S RESPONSE TO INQUIRY REPORT – http://tasmaniantimes.com/images/uploads/Ministerial_Response_to_the_Huon_Valley_Council_Board_of_Inquiry_Report_June_2016.pdf

LINK TO MINISTERIAL DIRECTIONS TO HUON COUNCIL –

 http://tasmaniantimes.com/images/uploads/Ministerial_Directions_to_the_Huon_Valley_Council_June_2016.pdf

Tasmanian Government took 'soft option' not dismissing Huon Valley

Council, mayor says By Richard Baines and Rosemary Bolger 

The Government decided not to sack the council despite a Board of Inquiry making the recommendation due to infighting, including a complete breakdown of the relationship between the Mayor and General Manager.The Mayor of Huon Valley is considering resigning after the State Government took what he says was the ''soft option'' in response to persistent dysfunction within the council. Mayor Peter Coad was disappointed the Government did not enforce the recommendation, instead giving the council one more chance to sort out its problems.... Click here to read more

LINK TO GOOD GOVERNANCE GUIDE FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT

http://www.dpac.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/271170/Good_Governance_Guide_May_2016.pdf

It seems that the Minister has backed away when decisive action appeared to be what was required. This is not just about Huon Valley Council as there are a number of Council's that deserve the close attention of the Minister.

The observation being made by many is that the all-in-all-out experiment is failing the electorate given that alderpersons/councillors feel more secure than they deserve to be. Increasingly accountability is becoming a serious issue with the operational arm seemingly exceeding the intention of the Local Govt. Act if not its legitimate interpretation.

The Minister's directions to Huon Valley Council are pretty much unambiguous and alderpersons/councillors – that's each and every one of them – should read is directions to Huon Valley Council as if they were directed to them, indeed they may well be.

WHEN ARE COUNCILS GOING TO WORK FOR US?

The Supreme Court’s decision on the Glenorchy Council wrangle offers nothing to suggest there are grounds to disqualify the board of inquiry that Local Government Minister Peter Gutwein ordered into that council. 

Down in the Huon Valley, where Gutwein last September also felt moved to inquire into its council’s “dysfunction”, the board’s final report is believed to be with the minister and, at time of writing, no application has been made to a court to object to the process of that inquiry. 

So, it should be reasonable to think that a decision on the future of Huon Valley Council is due any day soon. With the worst of Gutwein’s smoke-and-mirrors balanced budget behind him, and the forestry scene apparently relatively quiet, one would think the minister might have a bit of time to spare to focus his mind on his niggling local-government problems. - 

See more at: http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php?%2Fweblog%2Farticle%2Fhuon-valley-guessing-games-its-time-to-act-mr-gutwein%2Fshow_comments

Advertising and Arrangements For Postponed Public Meeting

Notice of Public Meeting

Public Meeting 7 June 2016 postponed to 21 June 2016

The public is advised that at the Public Meeting held at the Albert Hall, Launceston at 7pm on Tuesday 7 June 2016 in response to a petition received by the Council Meeting, the subject matter being:

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,

the following decisions were taken:

1.    That Mr Don Wing AM is appointed as chairperson for the purposes of the Public Meeting; and

2.    That in view of the flood crises that is threatening Launceston and with respect to the efforts and pleadings by the petitioners and their representative for this Public Meeting to be rescheduled to a later date since yesterday, such a request having been refused by Council's representatives, this meeting now be adjourned forthwith and resume at this same venue on Tuesday 21 June 2016 at 7pm, so that those people attending can now return home safely.

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Meeting will be held in Albert Hall, corner of Tamar and Cimitiere Streets Launceston, commencing at 7pm on Tuesday 21 June 2016 to consider the matters sought by the petitioners, namely:

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.

The chair of the Public Meeting shall be Mr Don Wing AM and the Meeting shall be conducted in accordance with the Local Government Meeting Procedures (Regulations) 2015, as appropriate. The agenda of the meeting will be:

1.    Opening remarks from the Mayor, Alderman A M van Zetten

2.    Introductory remarks from the Chair, Mr Don Wing AM

3.    Report on submissions by the General Manager under section 60A(4) of the Local Government Act 1993 (Tas)

4.    Statements of position (15 minutes each)

(a)  Council

(b)  Petitioner

5.    Motions on the subject matter

6.    Close

Written submissions in relation to the subject matter have been summarised by the General Manager and will be available to those attending the Public Meeting and can be viewed at www.launceston.tas.gov.au.

Robert Dobrzynski

General Manager