COUNCIL APOLOGISES FOR ITS RATEPAYER SURVEY

FROM THE UK: “A Suffolk council has apologised after 80 residents received a voter registration letter which asks them to log on to a pornographic website.

Mid Suffolk District Council issued the letter to residents in the Claydon and Barham wards asking them to confirm who lives at their address to check who is eligible to register to vote.

However, the website given for residents to respond actually directs them to a porn site.

Mike Evans, strategic director for Mid Suffolk and Babergh District Councils, has apologised for the ‘embarrassing mistake’.

He said the letter was a second reminder to chase up residents who hadn’t responded to an initial communication on registering to vote.

He said the inclusion of the x-rated web address was a ‘technical slip’.

Mr Evans added: “Sending out this web address was absolutely not our intent and we apologise unreservedly to anyone who received it.

“It is unfortunate that the mail merged form produced for Mid Suffolk from the anonymous data on our system has led to this unacceptable mistake. It should not have happened and we are putting it right.”

A letter of apology will be hand delivered to all those affected later today or over the weekend.” .... [LINK ... http://www.buryfreepress.co.uk/news/mid-suffolk-district-council-apologises-after-issuing-letter-directing-residents-to-porn-website-1-7650832]

EDITOR’S NOTE: It is understood that this kind of thing happens in Tasmania quite regularly and specifically in Launceston given that city’s commitment to, and apparent addiction to, marketing via social media despite claims to the contrary. However, no apologies have yet been sent to any residents or ratepayers.

Citizen Juries Are Working Right Now

The newDEMOCRACY Foundation Day three of the Nuclear Citizens' Jury in Adelaide. Jurors hearing from 32 witnesses that they chose. This YOUtube video provides an insight into how Citizen’s Juries work and are working [LINK] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5-KegQKmSE

If you want to know more about what citizens' juries are and how they work? Why not listen to nDF Board member, Professor Carson, being interviewed on Real Democracy Now! a podcast (episode 1.1). This podcast is hosted by one of the newDEMOCRACY Foundation’s very own volunteers and is available through iTunes [LINK] https://itunes.apple.com/au/podcast/real-democracy-now!-a-podcast/id1164312350?mt=2]

CONSULTANTS REPORT: Local Govt. Tas

As complex systems and organisational consultants, we'd like to add a little information that may help to resolve the dysfunctions that communities in Tasmania have and are experiencing with their Councils. 

Apart from the specifics of the case (e.g. personalities, local hot issues, power groups etc) there are generic issues created by weaknesses in the Local Government Act (LGA), that play out in Councils because there are too few protections for communities and their members built into the Act (e.g. Glenorchy) - indeed all the protections appear to be for the Councils themselves rather than those paying for them. 

We'll be brief and also make the offer to discuss any of this with you either by email (although that's slow), phone or in-person at a mutually convenient time. 

People have weaknesses and it is incumbent upon governments to try to legislate and regulate in ways that help overcome or avoid those weaknesses (e.g fraud protection, anti-corruption measures). .

We believe that the Tasmanian LGA is vague in its specification of Council's purpose and activities, and thus enables Councils to take on all kinds of activities and do "whatever is convenient" to carry out those activities. That loose definition is not offset by any practical means for community members to get redress or otherwise prevent Councils from acting in ways that damage, alienate or disadvantage the community or its members (e.g. Launceston Council operates businesses like gymnasia that compete directly with its own ratepayers). 

In the current situation then, the Act serves to protect the Council but offers no real redress to the community (discounting the weak 'code of conduct' actions that community members are charged for and that are carried out by the Council's own representative group the LGAT). .

We suggest that unless structural matters such as these are addressed, a counci such as Huon Valley Couuncil runs the real risk of lapsing into more of the same after any period of administration. 

We offer this purely in an attempt to help in case these issues have not yet been raised.

ABA Consulting (Tas)

UPDATE: The Huon Valley Resdients and Ratepayers Association (Inc)

Patricia Kyne Australia 
OCT 25, 2016 — The Huon Valley Residents and Ratepayers Association (Inc) 

When the recently appointed Commissioner completes her term in office we do not want to find ourselves in the same situation as previously.

To help avoid this HVRRA will focus on:
• Community Consultation Ensuring the Commissioner’s role is fully explained to the community and that she implements and adopts an appropriate communications strategy. Ensuring that HVC acts in full accordance with its 2013 “Community Consultation Framework” ,

• Accountability Ensuring all the Board of Inquiry recommendations that remain relevant are comprehensively assessed and, where appropriate, implemented. ,

• Transparency The full release of the HVC commissioned ‘Page Seager Report’.

• Advocacy With no elected councillors to act on our behalf HVRRA will advocate on behalf of individuals or community groups when appropriate.,

If you support these aims and consider them important, please come along to our next meeting: 7pm, Monday, 31st October in the Cygnet Town Hall Supper Room 
• If you can’t make it to the meeting, but would like to support HVRRA, a membership application form can be obtained by contacting us at the email address below.
• You can also join HVRRA at the meeting. All members have voting rights and 5 new committee members will be elected on the night

For further information call: 6295 0887 or email: hvrra@iinet.net.au
 President Patrick Synge
Vice President Sylvia Merope
Secretary Linda Poulton
Treasurer David de Burgh

Implement the Major Recommendations of the Huon Valley Board of Inquiry

THE PETITION

"Minister, in June 2016 you decided to give directives which generally accorded with the secondary recommendations of the Board of Inquiry Report into the Huon Valley Council.

With respect Minister, the Huon Valley Council is unable to comply with those directives because it continues to be completely dysfunctional as a result of the unworkable relationship between the Mayor, the General Manager and certain other Councillors. 

The residents of the Huon Valley Council are completely disheartened by the ongoing infighting in Council and are becoming completely disengaged with our Council. Council is no longer capable of serving its community. 

We believe that the implementation of the primary recommendations in the Huon Valley Council Board of Inquiry is the only way to achieve greater accountability and transparency in our Council. 

We, the undersigned, hereby petition the Hon Peter Gutwein MP, Minister for Planning and Local Government to immediately implement 

Recommendation 1 and Recommendation 2 of the Huon Valley Council Board of Inquiry Report which are. 

R1: Pursuant to section 226(1)(b) of the Act, the Minister is to recommend that the Governor by order dismiss the councillors and appoint a Commissioner under section 231 of the Act to perform the functions of the Council. 

 R2: A new election is not called for a minimum period of 12 months." 

The petition was an online petition and petitioners were asked to submit their postcode with your signature so that the Minister could be made made aware of the degree of municipal support this petition has received. "

To \view the Board of inquiry Report CLICK HERE 

NOTE: This petition was delivered to: Minister for Planning and Local Government Hon. Peter Gutwein MP  Patricia Kyne started this petition with a single signature, and the outcome is history. 

Start a petition today to change something you care about. CLICK HERE

When nobody is listening, or wants to listen, change.org offers a way forward

To see the progress of the Huon Council petition CLICK HERE

Local Government – Why not have an open inquiry?

CLICK HERE TO GO TO SOURCE

Surely there is a better way than this dragged out, nock'em down (maybe?), costly word fight with the Minister, councils and aldermen etc. etc. 

Indeed, what is the Liberal government's agenda in regard to the interference in local councils? Is it as simple political distrust of council decision making or is there more to it? 

The Mercury tells us that Glenorchy's aldermen are "expected to receive a draft board of inquiry report by next month, more than a year after the process began. ... Local Government Minister Peter Gutwein announced the board of inquiry a year ago last week, because of what he described as divisions in the council affecting governance [not to mention ratepayers] ... Mr Gutwein said the draft report would be provided to involved parties by the end of November."

The Mercury reports that "Mr Gutwein said, after receiving the draft report, he would follow the “appropriate processes” to ensure procedural fairness for all parties.... The board has been made up of former West Tamar mayor Barry Easther and former Flinders Island mayor Lynn Mason. ... CLICK HERE TO GO TO THE MERCURY STORY

By all accounts this board is beavering away but getting nowhere fast on the evidence. Mr Easther says “There’s a lot of work to be done ... [and work has been] ...  "delayed earlier this year after Alderman Jenny Branch-Allen brought a Supreme Court case, claiming the board had treated her unfairly." 

Chief Justice Alan Blow found in favour of some of Ald Branch-Allen’s claims in June and he ordered that Ald Branch-Allen be presented with any findings against her and be given an opportunity to respond. 

Interestingly the board of inquiry’s terms of reference include investigating compliance with the Local Government Act 1993 by Mayor Kristie Johnston, aldermen and general manager Peter Brooks. 

Apparently the board is examining governance structures and processes adopted by council since the October 2014 local government elections – and well might they!

Ratepayers throughout Tasmania will have noted that a board of inquiry report into the Huon Valley Council recommended the dismissal of all nine councillors when it was released in June. 

However, Mr Gutwein let everyone off the hook an gave Huon Valley six months to comply with seven ministerial directions – but in the end he has dismissed the council anyway.

George Burrows, a Glenorchy ratepayer has offered up an "alternative for the government to consider and hopefully act upon Local Council has been inept at the best and possibly corrupt at the worst "

Mr. Burrows says"Create a State Government department, it could be structured like the Health and Education Departments, with managers at various levels and salaries depending on the size of the operation. Thus greater Hobart would have a director, Launceston and maybe some lesser positions for other previous council areas."

  

He goes on to say "this would take one expensive tier of government out of the system and save considerably on salaries and allowances for Mayors and Aldermen as well as the many very expensive city managers"  

Its little wonder that this idea has not and is is unlikely to get too much support from the operational wing of local government. Indeed it's speculated that there is a billion dollars to be save by eliminating most of Tasmania's councils.

Mr. Burrows also says "to make sure good representation for citizens continues the money saved is used to increase the Tasmanian Lower House back to the previous numbers."

He also says this would allow"amalgamation, long over due, cutting out an inefficient and costly tier of government and bringing back to the Lower House more elected members, giving citizens a greater choice of candidates, a greater gene pool for ministerial appointments and enough backbenchers a to work with the the problems of citizens in their respective electorates."

Whatever, it is untenable that the status quo might prevail in any sense. Clearly the Local Govt Act is well past its use-by-date and that too many people have too much to loose if any level of change is initiated. Therefore, it is very clear that there is a need to break the impasse here given all that goes before the point we are at.

What to do?  Hold an open public inquiry – judicial inquiry, citizens assembly/jury, whatever – that is held out in the open, with public submissions, open hearings, witnesses being called etc. Such an inquiry would surely encourage the exploration of ideas that currently being suppressed for whatever reason.

Lindsay Street Carpark Off The Agenda

Launceston Council's Lindsay Street Carpark proposal is now off the agenda.  

Whilst the council has not provided a reason for 'the withdrawal' of a proposal that was masquerading as an ANCILLARY USE because car parking is PROHIBITED under the planning scheme on the Lindsay St site.

Now why is it that the community knows such things and the council functionaries all the way up and down the line seem not to?

Speculatively, the Lindsay St car park might have actually been devised with the intended use being to  supplement the car parking that would (might?) be displaced by UTas on the Inveresk site.

In fact, this project provides insights into the council's processes and more importantly it poses so many questions. In fact, what might have happened if the community wasn't alert to the problems and issues and less than three representors put their hands up?

The advice that the application has been withdrawn from the aldermanic assessment process and that it will no longer be referred to the Council meeting for determination is loaded with questions. A question that comes to mind very quickly is the cost of the process to date. In fact what are those costs? How can they be discovered if none of the aldermen pursue the matter? Who within council was advocating this solution to an unidentified 'problem'? Who bears the responsibility if not the cost?

Its easy to deduce that it'll be the hapless ratepayers who'll foot the bill however much it turns out to be. However, is there any imperative within council to discover such expenditure in order to establish fiscal discipline within the council's operational wing? A ratepayer, or even an alderman by all accounts, asking such a question is very likely to have Section 62 (2) of the Local Govt. Act recited to them. Is this how such inappropriate expenditure gets to be explained away?

The kind of expertise asserted throughout such planning processes is covered by Section 65 of the Local Government Act 1993. It  requires the General Manager to certify that any advice, information or recommendation given to Council is provided by a person with appropriate qualifications or experience, and the General Manager is required to certify that it is so. Even if late in the day it seems that the General Manager discovered himself unable to certify any such thing for this process.

With this information in hand, and knowing that an expert judgement needed to be made, a whole bunch of questions arise that deserve to be answered. Before a site meeting could be held on October 13 at 1pm at Lindsay Street why hadn't the proposal's legitimacy been tested? Why hadn't either the 
outside consultant assessment planner or the in-house applicant, the officer responsible for  Commercial Project Delivery, thoroughly investigated this proposal?

Then there are some rather uncomfortable questions beyond those above. The big one being what are the aldermen actually doing to fulfil their representational role and save the costs that accumulate and get to be passed on to ratepayers with an smothered "oopps" and not even a hint of a "sorry"?

L McKenzie

SO the exHuon Mayor wants an inquiry ... WHY WOULDN'T HE?

CLICK TO GO TO THIS STORY

ALEXANDRA HUMPHRIES, The Mercury, October 13, tells us that "FORMER Huon Valley mayor Peter Coad has called for a parliamentary or judicial inquiry into the “campaign” to have him removed as mayor... The statement comes after the council’s response to a draft board of inquiry report was leaked to the Mercury, indicating that the council asked Local Government Minister Peter Gutwein to call for Mr Coad to resign as mayor.... MORE: HUON VALLEY COUNCIL WANTED COAD GONE, SAYS REPORT CLICK HERE

Well he might say that but why stop at that? It is abundantly clear that Local Govt in Tasmania, and it might be argued Australia too, is broken ... seriously broken. In Tasmania, with an Act framed in 1993 [LINK] its not at all surprising that it be imagined that 'things' have moved on – or should have.

The HUON DEBACLE is but one bit of the nonsense being played out under the banner of "Local Governance" in Tasmania. Anyone paying any attention at all will know that Glenorchy, Glamorgan-Spring Bay Councils, Launceston even, are failing to deliver on the Local Govt. promise and purpose"

• 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.

More to the point, councils are required to perform their functions as a council in consultation with its constituency – plus involve and to be accountable to the community in doing so. Well, day by day that's a promise that's been taken awfully lightly. In fact council's elected representative, all 29 cases in Tasmania, are becoming less relevant.

CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO ENLARGE

The idea that council's are populated by community representatives and 'public servants' becomes less and less credible by the day as does the Minister's refusal to force amalgamations. In one sense his reluctance is understandable given the political pressure he might well be under  to 'do the amalgamations' this way or that in order to deliver this outcome or that.

Let alone any of that there is an argument being put about that there is a 'billion bucks to be saved' if amalgamation were to go ahead. If it were half that it'd be worth doing!

However there are too many councillors and aldermen on the 'public teat' for them to be demonstrating any enthusiasm at all to be done out of an income that requires little or no effort to receive.

They are only to be outdone by the so-called upper echelon of 'the administration' who are raking in more than the so-called 'representatives' and for about the same level of effort. The question has to be asked, just how many of them could win a position in the private world where productivity and accountability are criteria for maintaining a position? Indeed, how many could manage their own business profitably and deliver value to their customers?

These are rhetorical questions the answers to which are well known but rarely spoken of in 'polite company' – or even the community. Mouthing such things is ever likely to get one 'into a spot of bother' albeit that there may be truth to be found there.

The Local Govt. Act 1993 is without doubt deeply flawed and redundant at best. Its underpinning notion that the constituency can trust a council because it is 'the council' in any other circumstance would be laughable. But why aren't the punter laughing councils out of office? It's because the State Government, rather governments of all complextions over time, have protected 'councils' for reasons beyond comprehension.

There are enough reasons to initiate a judicial inquiry into Tasmania's Local Government 'SYSTEM' as its very clear that it costs way too much to deliver too few services. The Minister is proving himself to be timid and asking the question "why?" poses far too many uncomfortable questions. So be it, what are the answers. It's time that the impasse was broken and that a thorough judicial  inquiry was held.

Item #1 for such an inquiry should be SECTION 65 of the Act closely followed by SECTION 62.

Too much is at stake and Tasmanian capacity to pay more and more for ever diminishing services is shrinking by the day. Not to put too fine a point on it, a  great many 'leaners' need to be replaced by fewer 'lifters'!