COUNCILS ARE COSTING US WAY WAY TOO MUCH

At Kingborough Council's AGM last Saturday ratepayers noted the GM earned more than the Premier: "As distasteful as this issue is to air in public, ratepayers have a right to expect that if the GM is rewarded so handsomely, then we need value for money." The Mercury looked Statewide and did some comparisons – AND SOME VERY GOOD WORK.

There is absolutely no justification for 29 Council ripping off ratepayers and paying both Councillors/Aldermen way over the odds for doing way too little. 

Arguably the $6.5Mil spent on General Managers is money misspent and the $2Bil/whatever spent on 'Local Govt' could be spent much more productively. The news the some GM's are demanding 'more money' is the stuff of fantasy on their part. 

Where are they getting this nonsense about their value?

Likewise, for the most part Councillors are not delivering and they see themselves as being on some kind of sinecure that affords them those 'little extras' in life. Ask most to take a call, answer an email, represent you, do something, as often as not you will be dreaming – sadly.

With a population hovering around 500K what is required is something like a ‘LOCAL GOVERNANCE COMMISSION’ headed up by a Board of Commissioners: 

• All appointed and salaried; and
• Charged with determining relevant policies and strategies. 

It would need an administration delivering local services relative to place. There may be a roll for local representational advocacy groups but ‘governance’ can be much better delivered by a single commission underpinned by appropriate accountability mechanisms – such as citizen's assemblies. 

Currently many of the States Councils are dysfunctional and expensive that have become unaccountable bureaucratic fiefdoms essentially.

The claim that General Managers “earn” their salaries, superannuation and packages is the stuff of myths.

It is time for ZERO WASTE in a multi-dimensional sense  – in administration and at the 'resource recovery centres'.

It’s time to change. Actually it is way past that time.

THANKS TO THE MERCURY FOR THEIR GOOD WORK

COUNCIL RESPONDS TO TREE QUESTIONS

QUESTIONS and RESPONSES:

The following questions, submitted in writing to Council on 4 December 2019 by Mr Ray Norman, have been answered by Mr Shane Eberhardt (Director Infrastructure Services).

Questions:
Against the background of information currently circulating on social media and the personal representations made to the ‘Concerned Citizens Network’ relative to the reported removal of mature trees at Churchill Park a number of questions arise. In particular the questions are relative to Council’s reported declaration of a Climate Change Emergency.

1. Does Council’s determination of a Climate Emergency have any currency at all within Council operations or any practical implications in regard to the realisation of Council works carried out on the ground within its jurisdiction?

Response:
The Climate Emergency Declaration provided direction to the recently endorsed Sustainability Strategy. The Sustainability Strategy is implemented through changes or development of policy and procedures which influences the Council's operations.

2. Does Council’s determination of a Climate Emergency have any veracity as a City of Launceston policy?

Response:
As answered above, the Sustainability Strategy is the key Council policy position on how the Declaration is to be implemented. City of Launceston

3. Beyond the rhetoric, does Council’s determination of a Climate Emergency have any strategic importance going forward and if so where can the city’s citizenry find documentation of this policy to guide them in their strategic decision making?

Response:
The Climate Emergency Declaration has given direction to the recently endorsed Sustainability Strategy. Initial actions contained within the Sustainability Strategy are underway to assess the Council's baseline carbon footprint and community action planning to work with our community in addressing climate impacts and issues. These actions build on the past decade of the Council's energy efficiency and renewable energy use, demonstrating cost saving and a commitment to sustainability across the breadth of the Council's operations, including building and assets, traffic, transport and parking, cultural and sporting services and facilities, procurement and waste management. As a significant and complex challenge, climate change requires a wellconsidered and persistent response, which is the Council's approach. The Sustainability Strategy is available on Council's website.

4. Who within Council has delegated authority backed by the relevant expertise to determine a course of action in the realisation Council development relative to declared policies? Also, what experience and expertise do they have in order to qualify them to make appropriate determinations in this area of Council’s operations?

Response:
The Council has a diverse range of employees with qualifications and experience relative to the roles they undertake within the Council. Where necessary, formal delegations support decisions being made in accordance with legislative requirements.

5. In regard to the Churchill Park carpark development who authorised the removal the removal of trees to facilitate the development? Given that a decision was made on what basis was it made?

Response:
Following extensive public consultation, the Churchill Park Masterplan for the precinct was approved in an open Council Meeting on 16 July 2018. The Masterplan identified the trees to be impacted. City of Launceston

The Churchill Park Masterplan includes a current commitment of over $2 million (2018/2019 and 2019/2020 financial years), including:

upgrade of the existing car parking to address safety and capacity issues;

construction of two additional playing fields; and

relocation of the centre car parking area to allow for the additional grounds.

6. Does Council have an up to date register of significant trees and groupings of trees and associated vegetation that documents the significance of the tree, trees and/or the placescaping and cultural landscaping within which they exist? If so where can the city’s citizens and others gain access to the register? If there is no such register why does it not exist?

Response:
Council maintains an extensive register of trees but this register does not apply criteria for significance. This information is available on the Tree Explorer App, accessible through the Council's website.

Excluding the Council's bushland reserves, the Council maintains approximtely 30,000 trees in municipal parks and streets. Trees within the streets and parks are managed in accordance with the Council's Tree Management Policy which is available on the Council's website.

This Tree Management Policy provides a clear and consistent management approach to ensure that the City of Launceston's trees are:

recognised as valuable community assets;

adequately protected from works and development;

maintained in a healthy condition to increase useful life expectancy; and

removed only under defined conditions.

7. Is the significance of the mature trees removed at Churchill Park acknowledged in any way and especially so in regard to the role they play in environmentally securing the now defunct landfill site?

Response:
The health and condition of the trees was assessed by an arborist to with the aim to retain as many trees as possible. Due to the existing site conditions these trees have been in decline for a number of years. A number of dead and dying trees have been removed over the past decade in this space. Replacement plantings are planned for this area. City of Launceston


8. How many trees have actually been removed and how many more in the area are intended to be removed for any reason? Indeed, what trees elsewhere are currently under threat of removal?

Response:
The trees within the footprint of the Stage 2 carpark have been removed. The remaining trees will be retained and protected. Trees may be periodically removed when identified as unsafe in our accordance with the Council's Tree Management Policy.

9. What mitigation is intended to overcome the consequences of the removal of the trees that have removed and upon what expert advice is Council relying in regard to such mitigation?

Response:
A qualified arborist undertook the assessment. Due to natural loss of vegetation due to site conditions revegetation at Heritage Forest is an ongoing process.

10. Is this an instance where SECTION 62 of the Tasmanian Local Government Act 1993 when the General Manager will determine a way forward or is it an instance where Council will decide the matter and/or reinforce its policy determination in open Council?

Response:
The Climate Emergency Declaration and Sustainability Strategy were endorsed in open Council Meetings and the General Manager is implementing these in accordance with functions and powers outlined in section 62 of the Local Government Act 1993 (Tas). City of Launceston


11. What is the estimated cost to ratepayers in regard to resolving this matter and when will it be provided to ratepayers in order that interested parties can be informed relative to their planning in like situations?

Response:
The matter relates to an approved DA for a high use recreation area and ongoing parks maintenance, subject to existing policies and procedures. The Council's staff are undertaking the tree management work. There are no additional costs attached to this other than that already budgeted for the project, which was developed in response to demand by the community to improve the playing field facilities for the substantial number of families that participate in sporting activities at the site.

QVMAG ANNUAL REPORT IN REVIEW

FOREWORD

The QVMAG's 2018-19 Annual Report should be seen as one of the most concerning documents to come out of Launceston's governance in recent times. Read critically, the evidence for functional unaccountability and the opacity of both governance and management is in plain view for anyone who wants to see it.

Moreover, the General Manager's statement in the press ... "Under the reform, the council is also looking at how to transition the Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery and UTAS Stadium to a more contemporary and appropriate governance model." is a demonstration of his use of SECTION 62 of Local Government Act 1993. This is essentially an 'emergency power'  ascribed to his position and one that has been serially, and somewhat surreally, misused by recent incumbents. 

Here there is a good case for the proposition that the elected representatives, the QVMAG's Trustees by default, have stood haplessly by in disregard for their duty of care and the trust invested in them in their 'governance role'. Who has investments in the institution? Well: 

• Launceston's ratepayers; 

• Tasmania's taxpayers; 

• National and international donors and sponsors;

• Scholars and researchers; and 

• The owners of cultural and intellectual property held in QVMAG collections. 

That all this involves the expenditure of something in the order of $7Million of public monies, is non-trivial – and this is further compounded by the fact that there is an estimated $230Million plus in public assets at risk.

There must be change and 'reportedly' over some years external advice has been sought, and paid for – and by all accounts these 'expert consultants' have been paid quite handsomely. This 2018/19 report raises concerns that have remained unaddressed for far too long.

The status quo must not be allowed to persist. The current state of affairs must be brought to an end and with some urgency.

To read the review GO2

https://qvmag20182019.blogspot.com/

GORGE HOTEL Letters to the editor Dec 2

 
Letters to the editor | December 2, 2019

More hotel questions

WELL this Gorge Hotel business has to be the proposal that keeps taking.

To get to the root cause of this mess we need to understand why professional advice, from council officers to councillors, said the proposal was compliant.

So clear was the failure to meet building requirements only two of the four grounds were fully considered by the RMPAT.

Did diligent, professional council planners not consider the Launceston Interim Building Scheme (2015) and how likely a test against those requirements would rule the proposal out?

Who knows what really happened?

We do know that it's a flawed process that delivers a recommendation that fails on appeal.

We need an independent investigation of council processes that delivered this hapless recommendation to councillors.

No doubt there will be some lessons learnt and the cost of the investigation more than likely offset in the near future.

Here in Launceston we have a diligent group of people representing us on council.

They deserve good advice.

And professional planners need to be properly heard without fear or favour (should an investigation suggest this an issue).

Mitchell Dabelstein, Launceston.

Special treatment?

SO Dean Cocker from the JAC Group is re-submitting the Gorge Hotel proposal and expects the Launceston City Council to change its own planning laws to expedite this development.

From what was in the local paper it seems this edifice didn't meet the LCC's own planning laws, yet all but one councillor voted for it to go ahead.

Only one councillor had the guts to go against what he was expected to do.

Should the council change its own planning laws, then can we all expect to be able to build or demolish whatever we want, because they can't do it for one and not do it for the whole group of we ratepayers?

Like the state government, our council seems to be riding roughshod over anyone who threatens the status quo and woe betide anyone who dares go against them.

Someone on the radio on Wednesday likened our state to one going in the direction of a police state and it's not hard to see why.

No consultation and if you protest throw them in jail, probably the one whose location the Liberals didn't tell the residents of Westbury about until they announced it to the media.

Glennis Sleurink, Launceston.

..................................................

COMMENT 

Interesting letters and mostly for the sentiments they project. They raise some interesting side issues. A key factor that has come into play is the issue of professional advice.

Section 65 of the Local Govt Act requires the General Manager to guarantee the advice offered to Council. This is a matter of law!

It is of some interest that the GM once held the position of Director of Planning at Launceston Council. Consequently, the councillors had every right to expect that the advice he and his planning staff offered could/should indeed be relied upon. It has turned out differently.

There is increasing evidence that the City of Launceston needs a root and branch overhaul but the evidence thus far in regard to its 'Strategic Organizational Realignment' is not encouraging as information is drip fed to ratepayers et al. It would seem that anything and everything that can be done to protect senior management from meaningful accountability is being, and will be, done.

Most concerning is the propensity  GM's apparent reliance upon Section 62 of the Local Govt. Act. Basically this emergency provision allows a GM to do almost anything and it is being employed to the Nth Degree – and at the drop of a hat.

NB While all councillors, bar one, voted to approve the Gorge Hotel proposal, Councillor Spenser was not present due to illness.  Thus  he did not vote in support of the proposal. It can only be a matter of speculation as to how he might have voted if he was present to do so. 

QVMAG ANNUAL REPORT

GO2 ... https://www.qvmag.tas.gov.au/About/Reports-and-Policy

While you are there check this stuff out:

PolicyCollections(PDF, 60KB)
Research Committee(PDF, 23KB)
Friends(PDF, 21KB) 
Firearms(PDF, 23KB)
Human Remains(PDF, 27KB)

(PDF, 27KB)

Governance CharterThe Museum Governance Advisory Board (MGAB) works with the City of Launceston and community to advance the aims of QVMAG. 
Read the MGAB Charter here(PDF, 51KB).

This is worth reading oif you are interested in accountability and transparency

LOCAL GOVERNMENT MUST GO

-->

In Tasmania, our 29 councils represent about $2Bn of misspent monies. Elected reps defend their positions so as they attend the bank and withdraw their ill-gotten gains. Most/many are little more than lead-swingers of the highest order.

As for the bureaucrats, they are increasingly unaccountable and are enabled to operate in the dark. Moreover, typically they lack the expertise they claim for themselves while they are paid to- much to do too little.

FROM THE DAILY NEWS

“So there I was, driving down one of the busier stretches of bitumen in my neck of the woods, dodging potholes that grow larger by the day, swerving to avoid piles of uncollected rubbish, steering through large puddles of water because the drains have been clogged for months and giving a wide berth to an unregistered dog weaving its way through the traffic, when I was suddenly distracted by a new roadside sign.

Couldn’t miss it, actually. It was one of those big-screen digital displays that often warn you to slow down because of serious problems ahead.

But this was a sign from my local council carrying a much more important community message.

This council, it read, “SAYS NO TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE”.

It was at that moment that I had a rare epiphany. It’s time to get rid of local government.

We pay rates to our local councils so they can fix the potholes, collect the rubbish, clean the drains and catch unregistered dogs roaming the streets.

We don’t pay them rates so they can act like a Miss Universe contestant whose ambition in life is to foster world peace while humming a couple of bars of Kum-Bah-Yah.

No one disputes the sad fact that Australia is surely the most over-governed country in the world.

Not only that, but we are increasingly governed by collectives of virtue-signallers – people who have the need to loudly proclaim their moral values and preach them incessantly until everyone else understands just how morally superior they are.

And so we have a succession of federal and state governments spending hundreds of millions of our dollars every year on advertising crusades – sorry, “public safety awareness campaigns” – imploring us to drink wisely, eat healthily, walk regularly and drive safely.

Sure, you can argue some of those campaigns might have raised awareness about important issues.

Now I think about it, I’m certainly seeing fewer fat people driving drunk on the wrong side of the road while eating salt-laden hamburgers and washing them down with full-strength Coke.

But it’s a bit rich when local government bodies – always crying poor to justify regular rate hikes – decide it is their turn to make public motherhood statements.

Of course domestic violence is an enormous problem facing this country.

No one disputes its hideous impact on victims, or that we need a united approach to stamping it out that will involve an offensive on the cultural, gender and psychological fronts.

A lame sign on the side of a road already cluttered with too many hoardings isn’t just simplistic.

It demeans a topic that demands depth and courage, not flippancy.

But then, that is the standard we have come to expect from many of our local councillors.

All of you surely know by now that this is also the time of the year when the nation plays its annual game of “Which inner-city council of hand-wringing virtue signallers will try and ban/shift/rename Australia Day?”

In Melbourne, the City of Port Phillip has passed a motion to mark Australia Day with a “morning of mourning” before going ahead with an Indigenous welcome and citizenship ceremonies.

In Sydney, the Inner West Council has voted to scrap its Australia Day celebrations, including planned fireworks and a “Citizen of the Year” presentation.

Again, Australia Day is a fraught issue for many indigenous and non-indigenous Australians who quite justifiably resent its presence as a day of national celebration.

It’s a view that all of us should take into consideration.

But it’s not the sort of topic with which our thousands of trumped-up, power-lusting local government representatives should be concerning themselves.

The timing and tone of Australia Day – and even more importantly, a greater appreciation of the generational trauma experienced by the First People of this country since settlement – is a national issue that should be debated and recognised by all Australians.

Potholes. Bins. Footpaths. Those are the priorities for our councillors across the more than 500 – yes, 500 – “cities” and “shires” that make up our third tier of government.

When they finally achieve some skill in that area – and there is no sign yet of any proficiency gains despite more than a century of Federation – then perhaps our councillors could bestow their incredible insights and powers of reasoning on a subject quite close to the hearts of all ratepayers and concerned citizens.

Their task? To examine the three bloated layers of government in this country.

To tally up the billions of dollars it costs us because of all the duplication and bureaucratic waste.

To understand that a great nation is the sum of its people, not those who govern them.

Given their confidence in their intellectual powers and ability to reason, it shouldn’t take them long to conclude that the best motion they could ever pass would be to vote themselves out of existence.

And that, surely, would be a declaration worthy of any roadside sign.

Garry Linnell was director of News and Current Affairs for the Nine network in the mid-2000s. He has also been editorial director for Fairfax and is a former editor of The Daily Telegraph and The Bulletin magazine

THE NATIVES ARE GETTING RESTLESS

COMMENT

It is refreshing to start to see serious investigation of Launceston Council's modus operandi. It is way past time that it might be and quite probably 'The Examiner' is looking to increase its readership.

Rumour had it that 'council management' had a 'cosy relationship with the paper' and when anyone looks at council's budget there is an extraordinary commitment to marketing/propaganda. Ponder that!

Not so very long ago an Examiner journalist was 'disappeared' basically for writing an "unfriendly article". If you are pulling the strings one needs this sort of thing to keep the underlings in line.

Now that there are some signs that The Examiner has hit the refresh button ratepayers need to be sending in their Letters to the Editor. Let it not be said that what is published is a refl;ection of the community’s lack of concern.

While we are here, ratepayer might want to pay close attention to who are not turning up to meetings but are nonetheless attending their bank to collect what some regard as ‘pocket money’.  Also try and phone a councillor to see where that gets you and report in. Over to you on this one!

TWO LETTER FROM TODAY'S PAPER

City of Launceston

IT WAS astounding to read (The Examiner, October 26) Launceston's council being quizzed regarding its extraordinary expenditure on external experts.

Nonetheless, the list of external consultants is much larger than is being indicated.

What was less surprising was the implausible hollow bureaucratic rhetoric offered by the City of Launceston general manager Michael Stretton in response to the criticism being aimed squarely at the council.

There is something in the order of $80,000 plus per week tucked away in various council budget allocations ready to fund what now looks like secret discretionary spending. If it appears as if this expenditure is irregular and there is an arrogant disregard for transparency.

Ratepayers have taken their concerns to the Ombudsman, the Minister, the Director of Local Government and indeed the Auditor General That this goes without a mention, it must tell us something. Albeit late in the day, the press' new-found will to expose bureaucratic secrecy is welcomed by ratepayers and others.

Ray Norman, Launceston.

Consultants Data

DOES it not surprise anybody else that the City of Launceston council does not record data from external consultants? It doesn't surprise me. The data would possibly show how or what to do properly but does not fit the thoughts and the agenda of the managers or councillors. I would also like to know how and who their "tender for work invitations" is finalised and sent to.

City of Launceston general manager Michael Stretton says it is a $110 million business. Much more than this is tendered out and spent. A business of this size would usually have external auditors look at every aspect of a business. Does the council have this process in place each year? The amount of ratepayer funds spent on malls, playgrounds, sports fields and handouts to all and sundry for concerts, sporting events etc needs to be reined in.

How many millions have been spent on consultants for malls, sewer system, Tamar River etc? It's enough to put a tear in one's eye, not only a waste of other people's money but also the lack of record-keeping, that can be checked by authorities and others outside the council.

One thing I can count on with the council is higher rates and never ceases to amaze me on how much and on what projects large amounts of funding (money) seems to be given away willfully without consultation with the people who pay their wages.

Steve Rogers, South Launceston.