The QVMAG search goes opn

https://www.examiner.com.au/story/6191379/waves-v-still-missing-from-qvmag-after-nine-months/?cs=12

Launceston's Brett Whiteley drawing, Waves V, is still missing from the 

Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery, more than nine months after 

City of Launceston council announced it could not find the 1976 art work.

QVMAG staff became concerned about the drawing's whereabouts last year after researchers inquired about the drawing and it could not be found.

The drawing was recorded as having entered the museum's collection when purchased 

in 1976 for $800, but there has been no further record of it since - and it has never been displayed.

The value of Waves V is unknown, however works of similar media, content and size have recently sold from anywhere between $20,000 and $30,000.

City of Launceston general manager Michael Stretton said there was no update on the information given in March, when he confirmed Waves V was missing from QVMAG's fine art store.

"...it might be in another store or at a different QVMAG property," Mr Stretton said.

"This is one of the reasons we are eager to undertake a comprehensive audit of the QVMAG's extensive collection," he said.

Council has allocated $250,000 in its proposed 2019-20 annual budget to start the auditing process.

"Collection audits require significant resourcing and time. Being mindful of these resource requirements, a structured plan, procurement process and framework will be implemented."

Tasmania Police confirmed it had not received a report from the council about the missing drawing.

"We've liaised with Tasmania Police on the missing work, but there has not been an investigation at this stage due to the QVMAG being unable to confirm with certainty that it is not on QVMAG premises," Mr Stretton said.

MEDIA RELEASE: Launceston Council Issues in the spotlight

The scheduled City of Launceston Council meeting for May 30 has taken on somewhat extraordinary interest in recent days for a number of reasons.

Cr. Spencer's motion to do with Council's tender process has draw unusual attention within the Council operation and social media.

The General Manager has made a submission in the Agenda Papers strongly opposing Cr. Spencer's motion.

Whatever the outcome this motion is likely to change the ways Council does business in the city.

There has been considerable discussion on social media relative to the motion and the General Manager's and the Mayor's commentaries in the press.

Already, as result of comments to do with Council's budget and budget process Mayor van Zetten has come out arguing against asset sales and York Park in particular. And this is early days.

Other Council assets are likely to come into focus as a result of this motion and discussions that flow from it. Ratepayers have been calling for rate constraint for a very long time.

Aside from matters related to Cr Spencer's motion, other serious matters are being talked about. For instance UTas is meeting in Closed Council with the Councillors.

Another is to do with the vGorge Hotel's Development Application.

It is also being dis discussed that the QVMAG's Director is to be making an "announcement" and that institution is one area where budget constraint has been discussed over many years.

The Council meeting is due to open at 1 pm Thursday May 30 at Town Hall St John's Street.

The Gorge Hotel Development

CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO ENLARGE

THE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION ADVERTISED

• Advertised ‘The Examiner’ Sat May 18 2019 with a closing date of Monday 3 June 2019.

• LCC website Public Notices (as displayed on-line and displayed at the Customer Service Centre) from Monday 20/05/2019 to 28/05/2019 inclusive, indicated a closing date of 27/05/2019.

• LCC website Public Notices on 28/05/2019 indicated a closing date of 31/05/2019.

• LCC website Public Notices on 29/05/2019 indicated a closing date of 3/06/2019.

‘At best’ the correct information as required by legislation has only been notified, advertised and exhibited for 1 day.

Footy ground not for sale!

WELL it is official, the footy ground is not for sale. Get it, it is not for sale! Mainly that would be because if you tried to sell it yet again you might find a horse's head on your bed or something.

Unless you're trying to sell the Harbour Bridge to an Eskimo, its just not on to be selling something that others think they own already ... and twice.

But what does any of this have to do with the 'tender process at Town Hall'? You might well ask. Up  to now what happens at 'the footy ground' (no matter what else it is called) has been decided somewhere off to one side. 

Money ... well who knows about that murky stuff that in the end only buys stuff. 

We might remember that UTas got 'naming rights' before Council got to hear about it and apparently money wasn't an issue. Then there is a 'footy club' from elsewhere calling lots of shots it appears So, the ratepayers should be thankful for all the goodies. 

What economic sense does all this make? Yesterday there were 'lots of options" but today one has melted away in the mind of the Mayor. All this has been brought on not by a Councillor doing anything about selling 'the footy ground' but by him having a brave new vision for Council's 'tender process' – a vision to save ratepayers' money, a vision to help stop Launcestonians' rates climb by up to 50% over and above the rates paid now.

Apart from $3 to 4 Million for new grass on the footy field, new grass that many are saying is not required, new grass that some are saying is coming from Australia, when the old grass, as footy players have said, is pretty good etc. etc. New grass you wouldn't need to buy if you were flogging the joint ... then again you just might need to.

Mayor Albert, fresh from his high level course in 'footy ground curation', says the drainage under the grass is bad etc. and now deems that new grass is absolutely required for whatever reason and hang the cost ... or so it seems. Well there are other ways than throwing heaps of ratepayers' money at an area of grass. 

If via Council's old 'tender process' the right people will deliver the right grass to fix this problem that may or may not be a problem ... so be it. So, for whatever reason we need to hang on to this 'process' – even if it fails some test or other. The vision must be realised!

Remember, this is the process that delivered expensive tiles from Western Australia to Launceston's Mall, Civic Square and Quadrant Mall. Has anyone notice how much better they are than the 'local product' ?

From the Examiner

No plans to sell University of Tasmania Stadium,  NO SALE PLANS: The City of Launceston has disputed media reports stating the council is potentially considering selling University of Tasmania Stadium to ease the financial pressure on its ratepayers. UTAS Stadium, situated at Invermay, hosts a number of AFL games during the home-and-away season, with four Hawthorn matches being played there this year alone. Council said the games bring significant economic activity to Launceston - about $30 million worth every year. Launceston mayor Albert van Zetten said the City of Launceston had no plans to sell the stadium. He said work on council's long-term financial plan involved the exchange of "a number of ideas and proposals ... with a view to maximising value for ratepayers". "As a council, we manage assets valued at in excess of $2 billion on behalf of our community, so it's extremely important we manage them in a sustainable, responsible way," Cr van Zetten said. "In respect of the stadium, we are interested in examining how other stadiums around Australia are managed. There are many different models of management and operating structures, and different revenue streams in similar facilities across Australia. UTAS Stadium during a 2017 match between Hawthorn and the Brisbane Lions. UTAS Stadium during a 2017 match between Hawthorn and the Brisbane Lions. "It's about understanding those models and seeing if we can do things better with our own stadium. Our focus is on how to ensure we're maximising efficiencies at the stadium to ensure it is sustainable into the future." Cr van Zetten said council intended to ensure the "first class" stadium maintained its high standard, while also "maximising efficiencies where we can". ...

GORGE HOTEL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

[LINK]

UTAS NEWS FROM THE TRENCHES

Despite the inclination to giggle up your sleeve this is very serious stuff, very serious stuff. The claim that 'Christian ethics' are at work here, well it must be in a different church to the one that delivered its fire and brimstone from the pulpit when I was a boy. It is a different time and different world and the rules, well what can one say?

That this stuff is discussed well away from the glaring light is no surprise but nonetheless its is more than disappointing. And, if your aspirations are in heaven then maybe it is more than disappointing. When I was at university, advocating this kind of thing would have earned one a FAT FAIL.

What are they going to be talking about? Just what that cannot be said out in the open? What new information is at hand? Is this really about sparing ill advised idiots from their readiness to take on the shonky on the off chance of winning a buck or two? Is it to share the truth as it comes to be realised in the quiet? Is it so as previous enthusiasts are not exposed to the level of embarrassment they should be? And, there are many, many more questions!

This is a job that needs to be done before the odd player slinks off to buy pink trousers in Venice or is it Ifrican jungle shorts or something. All good for the purpose of taking selfies at drinkies to jolly along the conversations at the Bar-B-Q back home. Happy hols for those heading off!

Wishing everyone well, you do have to hope that the very keen protagonists bring along the fiscal fairies from down the bottom of their garden to sprinkle the proceedings with fairy-dust. They'll need every last sprinkle to get this project up and running given that:

1. There are not enough builders in Launceston to build their fantasy for whatever obscure reason.
2. There are too few part-time jobs in Tasmania, Launceston even, to attract the students they wish to charge horrendous fees. 
3. There is the threat of climate change when one builds on a tidal flat with the spectre of the flood always there.
4. The risk that Launceston residents are likely to start asking more and more questions and expect to get credible answers about rates etc.
5. The realisation that there are other places to study and as likely as not more cheaply for a better product.
6. There remains so many unanswered questions that will need to get answers ... need one go on?

However, as Noel Coward said "It's discouraging to think how many people are shocked by honesty and how few by deceit." 

John 'Rusty' Ley 

IS RISKING BOTH PEOPLE AND INFRASTRUCTURE AN ETHICAL OPTION?

Two recently released comprehensive reports provide strong evidence that the relocation proposal is seriously flawed.

The reports are:

(i) The North and South Esk Rivers Flood Modelling and Mapping Updates - Volume 1: Technical Report and Volume 2: Flood Mapping – by BMT Consultants, commissioned by the City of Launceston and released in January 2019.

(ii) An Evaluative Review (ER) of the UTas Inveresk Precinct Redevelopment – commissioned by the Northern Tasmanian Network Partners & Associates, authored by Mr Chris Penna, and released in March 2019.

·  The BMT Reports are based on the latest flood (2016), sea level rise and climate change data. The reports warn that Launceston’s much trumpeted reconstructed flood levees are no longer capable of protecting Invermay and the City from their designed 0.5% (1:200 year) flood event which would well overtop the levees and subject Invermay to flood waters 2m to 5m deep at Hazard Class 5 level: ie Unsafe for vehicles and people. All buildings vulnerable to structural damage. Some less robust buildings subject to failure.

· Civic duty should compel the City of Launceston (CoL) to provide Invermay/City residents and businesses with the full implications of the BMT Reports.

· The CoL and UTas have both disregarded a range of relevant, expert environmental reports that highlight the inadvisability and dangers of Inveresk development projects that will house large numbers of people. 

·   Key aspects of these reports and others of relevance, are described in the Evaluative Review, and are available from the website below.

·  The key messages in these reports were conveniently not included in the original 2016 UTas marketing document upon which funding commitments of $200m were made by Federal and State governments and upon which the CoL gifted Inveresk and Willis St land parcels to UTas without public consultation.

·   The Evaluative Review finds that no substantial, evidenced, environmental, economic or social cases have been publicly made by UTas or the CoL to validate the Inveresk Precinct Redevelopment.

· There is no information/data for a comparative analysis of Inveresk vs Newnham redevelopment to support the contention that the existing Newnham campus is unviable, outdated and losing students.

· The promised intents of UTas to both maintain and develop its existing Launceston based tertiary education offerings and to create and promote a range of 2-year industry related associate degree course are strongly supported by the Evaluative Review.

· UTas has acknowledged that the original proposal cost has increased markedly and the projected number of additional students has decreased significantly. Thus the Government funding and the CoL land gifts were provided under quite inaccurate assumptions. 

·  As the project sought more than $100m of Federal money, it should have been subject to much earlier stages of assessment by Infrastructure Australia (IA) - this did not occur despite awareness of this need.

·  The final Business Case was only submitted to IA on 31 Jan 2019. – after a prolonged, difficult process that was forced to `retrospectively create the logic’ for the UTas campus move to Inveresk.

·  The Evaluative Review shows that a lack of due process and due diligence has been a consistent, notable part of the entire project since its inception.

· The Launceston Community has not been well informed about this important public issue.

·   It has also been intimidated into accepting the UTas relocation proposal, or face the threat from UTas that it would withdraw or reduce its local University presence.

·  It also appears that IA, a so-called, independent body, is under political pressure to approve the `Northern Transformation Program’, as funding has already been handed over to the State.

·  The reconstructed levees have never been fully signed-off after professional inspection. Both the concrete levees and the complete system are still awaiting such formal approval as required.

·  The risk of seismic action has not been considered.

·   Parking and traffic congestion issues have not been adequately addressed.

The Evaluative Review, the BMT reports, and a range of other relevant reports/communications are available at: https://northerntasmaniannetworkpartners.blogspot.com/

For further information: Northern Network Partners & Associates, authored by Mr Chris Penna, P.O. Box 513, Launceston Tasmania 7250

The spectre of the flood: A Launcestonian thing

Here we have a video produced by the City of Launceston essentially dedicated to 'The Spectre Of The Food' as imagined by Lsauncestonians since the 1928 flood. It is worth watching and thinking about and likewise it is worth wondering why Launceston's Councillors haven't watched it and joined the dots. Indeed why hasn't UTas watched and joined the dots? 

In a 21st C context and with climate change in mind the video falls a little short of its mark but people need to watch for themselves and then ask that question.

 

TO WATCH GO TO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BhpDFekiMM&feature=youtu.be

UTAS CONFIDENT ENGINEERS ARE UP TO THE TASK AT INVERESK

THE University of Tasmania says it is confident engineers will be able to design a new campus capable of withstanding flooding, despite critics of the planned move to Inveresk arguing the risks have not been properly scrutinised. 

Retired teacher and academic Chris Penna has published a new report warning buildings at the proposed $260 million Inveresk campus would be more prone to flooding than previously thought because of rainfall increases in projected climate change scenarios. 

UTAS PUBLISHES PLANS FOR A PROPOSED NORTHERN CAMPUS UTAS HANDS GRAND PLANS TO FEDERAL GOVERNMENT Mr Penna said a recent flood mapping report published by the City of Launceston highlighted the risk the campus would face if the South Esk River burst its banks. 

“The report indicates that if there was a one-in-200-year flood any time soon, then Inveresk would be flooded to a depth of between 2 and 5 metres and that would be at a hazard class five level … which means there would be significant damage to buildings and that there would be danger to both humans and vehicles,” Mr Penna said. 

Mr Penna said buildings in the Inveresk area were also at risk of damage from low magnitude earthquakes off the Tasmanian coast. 

Retired academic Chris Penna, and Tasmanian Ratepayers Associaton president Lionel Morrell are concerned about flood risks under the proposed UTAS move to Inveresk. 

Infrastructure Australia is assessing the project’s final business case, which was submitted in late January, but Mr Penna said the body should have become involved earlier in the process. Money from the state and federal governments would be spent on the move from the existing UTAS campus at Newnham to Inveresk. 

The University of Tasmania expects its first development application to be lodged with the council by the end of next month. 

“We are confident in the ability of contemporary engineering to design flood-resilient buildings here in Launceston, as is done in cities and towns around the globe,” the university’s Launceston-based Pro Vice-Chancellor Professor Dom Geraghty said. 

“The challenges we are grappling with here, in a city at the confluence of two rivers, are challenges facing more and more communities around the world as climate change impacts the planet.” Labor MP for Bass, Ross Hart, said Mr Penna’s report “should be of assistance to the university” but reiterated his support for the move. “It is not unusual for engineers to deal with difficult sites but it’s something that needs to be addressed,” he said. 

The report was commissioned by a group opposed to the Inveresk move. 

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

Launceston ratepayers group calls for UTAS to reconsider its move to Inveresk Caitlin Jarvis

Launceston ratepayer Chris Penna and Northern Tasmania Network Partners group spokesman Lionel Morell have concerns over UTAS' campus move to Inveresk. 

A Launceston ratepayers group has called on the University of Tasmania to rethink its campus move from Newnham to Inveresk citing flood mitigation concerns. 

The Northern Tasmania Network Partners group, headed by Launceston architect Lionel Morell, has made the calls after the group commissioned its own independent review into flood and seismic risk. 

"We are not against the university reforming itself, we have to modernise our universities," Mr Morell said. 

However, UTAS says they are confident they can mitigate the flood risk and other challenges the site possesses and will forge ahead with the plans for the $260 million campus. 

Launceston ratepayer and researcher Chris Penna was commissioned to conduct the report for the Network after sparking a personal interest in UTAS' business case. 

Mr Penna said he came into the project "an independent" but said he quickly became concerned as he compiled the report because he "could find no data to support the assertions being made." 

He said he was unable to find evidence or any comparison of the risks related to the Inveresk move, compared to the "sensible" alternative, to stay at the Newnham site. 

A business case for the UTAS Inveresk campus is expected to be lodged in June after it missed its original deadline of the end of 2018. 

Launceston-based pro-vice-chancellor Dom Geraghty said UTAS was confident they could work through the challenges of the site. 

"We are confident in the ability of contemporary engineering to design flood resilient buildings here in Launceston, as is done in cities and towns around the globe. 

"It is important to design and build - and crucially to innovate - in places just like Inveresk," he said. 

"The challenges we are grappling with here, in a city at the confluence of two rivers, are challenges facing more and more communities around the world as climate change impacts the planet." 

Mr Morell and Mr Penna said they did not have an issue with UTAS plan, but rather the location and urged them to undertake a full public inquiry into the benefits. 

Mr Penna said more evidence and documents needed to be made public to ensure the community had a clearer understanding of the implications of the move. 

"It's fairly obvious that buildings can be designed to cope with issues such as the sedimentary materials they are being built and with potential flooding but this does not negate a lot of the other issues," he said. 

Those issues include the evacuation of the campus in the event of a flood and also the plans for the existing buildings UTAS already occupies at Inveresk.

UTAS, INVERESK & FLOOD RISK

Two recently released comprehensive reports contain no good news for the UTas proposal to move its University campus from Newnham to the Flood Zone of the Inveresk tidal flats:

(i) The North and South Esk Rivers Flood Modelling and Mapping Updates - Volume 1: Technical Report and Volume 2: Flood Mapping – by BMT Consultants, commis sioned by the City of Launceston and released in January 2019.

(ii) An Evaluative Review of the UTas Inveresk Precinct Redevelopment –commissioned by the Northern Tasmanian Network Partners & Associates, authored by Mr Chris Penna, and released in March 2 019.

Available on the CoL website, the BMT Reports are based on the latest flood (2016) , sea level rise and climate change data, and make worrying projections . The reports warn that Launceston’s much trumpeted reconstructed flood levees are no longer cap able of protecting Invermay and the City from their designed 0.5% (1:200 year) flood event, and that the level of protection is now halved to just 1% (1:100 year), assuming the levees function properly. The report predicts that a current 1:200 year flood w ould well overtop the levees and that Invermay would be subject to flood waters 2m to 5m deep at Hazard Class 5 level – ie Unsafe for vehicles and people. All buildings vulnerable to structural damage. Some less robust buildings subject to failure.

Apart from its low - key website, the C ity o f L aunceston has been modestly silent about the BMT reports, although it would be expected that part of its civic duty is to make Invermay/City residents and businesses fully aware of the implications of the report s. The C ity o f L aunceston and UTas have similarly disregarded several commissioned expert environmental reports (involving seismic, geotechnical and flood/tidal factors), from the 1990s onwards about Inveresk/Invermay, that all highlight the inadvisability and dangers of developments at Inveresk, especially expensive major projects that will house large numbers of people. Key aspects of these commissioned reports and others of relevance, are describ ed in the Evaluative Review , together with a per tinent sec tion that highlights the reports’ advices about the problems/issues related to development at Inveresk.

Any content and key messages from this library shelf of reports were conveniently not included in the original 2016 UTas marketing document upon which funding commitments of $200m were made by Federal and State governments and upon which the C ity o f L aunceston gifted Inveresk and Willis St land parcels to UTas. The Evaluative Review finds that no substantial, evidenced, environmental, economic or social cases have been publicly made by UTas or the City o f L aunceston to validate the Inveresk Precinct Redevelopment. The promised intents of UTas to both maintain and develop its existing Launceston based tertiary education offerings and to create and promote a range of 2 - year industry related associate degree course are strongly supported by the Evaluative Review . Nevertheless the vital provision of quality University courses for the Nor th has been disappearing. The Evaluative Review clearly do cuments the inadequacies of the 2016 marketing document and associated processes that managed to gain both political support and Government funding. As UTas has acknowledged that the cost of the original proposal has increased markedly and the projected number of additional students has decreased significantly, the funding and land gifts were provided under quite inaccurate assumptions. As the project sought m ore than $100m of Federal money, it should have been subject to much earlier stages of assessment by the `independent’ Infrastructure Australia (IA). This did not occur, and the final Business Case was only submitted to IA on 31 Jan 2019. It is now under e valuation, although rationalised approval is anticipated as the Federal funding has already been handed over to the State. The Evaluative Review shows that a lack of due process and due diligence has been a consistent, notable part of the entire project si nce its inception.

The Evaluative Review also demonstrates that the Launceston Community has been, and continues to be, intimidated into accepting the UTas relocation proposal, or face the threat from UTas that it would withdraw or reduce its local Univer sity presence. Similarly it appears that IA is under political pressure to approve the Northern Transformation Program. Such intimidatory pressures seem to have displaced rational assessments, and in most workplaces such behaviour could be labelled as bull ying and deemed unacceptable.

Additionally 

(i) the reconstructed levees have never been fully signed - off after professional inspection, with both the concrete levees and the complete system still awaiting such formal approval as required

(ii) the risk of seismic action has not been considered 

(iii) parking and traffic congestion issues have not been adequately addressed (iv) there has been no comparative cost - benefit analysis of redevelopment at Newnham.

Media Conference Location : Boland St Nth Esk Levee opposite Willis St carpark 11am

The Evaluative Review, the BMT reports, and a range of other relevant reports/communications are at: https://northerntasmaniannetworkpartners.blogspot.com/

Council sacked after mayor, councillors charged with corruption

This has to be so silly it clouldn't be true but6 bit is. More to the point local government skates so so close to the wind that this stuff could happen anywhere anytime. All we need is a whistle blower here and there and off we go. Logan City might well be lucky in that they get another chance to reset.

FROM THE NEW DAILY Logan Mayor Luke Smith and seven councillors have been charged with corruption offences following an investigation. 

A Queensland council has been sensationally sacked after the mayor and seven councillors were charged with corruption offences. 

An interim administrator will take over the reigns of Logan City Council on the outskirts of Brisbane after the remaining councillors could no longer form a quorum for meetings. 

It comes as the mayor Luke Smith was also charged with drink driving after he smashed his car into a stationary vehicle and tree on his way to KFC while allegedly three times over the limit on Wednesday. Smith and seven councillors were last week charged with fraud, accused of pushing the council’s CEO Sharon Kelsey out of her job. 

An eighth councillor is also on charges, accused of siphoning funds into her own bank account. Smith was already suspended from his job for alleged corruption offences when he was charged with fraud last week. 

Local Government Minister Stirling Hinchliffe said he had no choice but to dismiss the council and appoint an administrator pending fresh elections in March next year. “With nine of its 13 councillors automatically suspended as a result of serious integrity charges, council no longer had sufficient numbers to conduct meetings,” he said. “This had left Council unable to pass a Budget, appoint an Acting Mayor or pass a resolution to delegate matters to a standing committee or the CEO. 

 “I have not taken this action lightly and I want to stress that I had no choice but to intervene in the best interests of Logan residents. 

“This action does not interfere with any current legal proceedings and let me be clear any individuals facing charges are innocent until proven guilty.” 

Whistleblower and division five councillor Jon Raven isn’t accused of any wrongdoing but will also lose his job by the end of the day, when moves to dissolve the council take effect.

Mr Raven supports the government’s decision and says he always knew there’d be a cost from speaking out. 

“For the good of the city it needs to be done,” he told AAP. 

“We’re not able to make decisions as a council and there are serious legal consequences to the council being unable to make decisions.” 

Mr Raven said he would seek to regain his job at next year’s election.

Logan is the second council to be sacked by the government in less than a year, after alleged widespread corruption in Ipswich. 

A Crime and Corruption Commission investigation found Ipswich City Council’s culture was allowed to rot for years, to the point where corruption was no longer recognised. 

More than a dozen people connected to that council, including former mayors Paul Pisasale and Andrew Antoniolli, have been charged with criminal offences. 

Retired senior public servant Tamara O’Shea has been appointed interim administrator of Logan City Council, taking effect Thursday. 

The appointment takes effect today and follows the dismissal of 13 councillors, prompted by an unprecedented integrity crisis in Logan. .

“Dismissal is the only option available to me, given Logan City Council has lost its quorum and can no longer function effectively,” he said. 

Mr Hinchliffe said Ms O’Shea brought a strong set of capabilities to the role of interim administrator. 

“Ms O’Shea is highly respected for her distinguished career as a senior public servant,” he said. 

“In the coming weeks, I’ll be appointing an interim management committee, just as I did for Ipswich City Council to assist the interim administrator there to perform his responsibilities. 

“It’s my intention to offer the four non-suspended councillors – Lisa Bradley, Darren Power, Jon Raven and Laurie Koranski – appointments to this Committee.”