Ever since GRASS ROOTS [LINK] and YES MINISTER [LINK] appeared on our TV Screens our cynicism relative to representational government has been justified.
The scene being played out at Launceston's Town Hall to do with the city's 'tender process' brings those memories flooding back but this time it is real life and the questions are mostly to do with ratepayers' capacity to pay and the adequacy of our hip pocket.
Tender processes, because of the money involved, have been contentious forever. In Queensland the goings on in and around a couple of their councils the State Govt. moved on Local Govt in an attempt to close down shonky dealings. Accountability and transparency is always the issue in the end and corrupt government put down the foundations Queenslanders grapple with still.
A Tasmanian Councillor, not from Launceston, in a conversation about the credibility of Local Govt remonstrated about how "really silly this accountability talk really is" which might tell us something about how misplaced our trust is when it is invested in Local Govt in Tasmania and when elected representatives are tested. Some do not deserve our trust.
On the evidence many/most/some of these people are simply along for the ride and the status/stipend/honorarium/money since nobody would pay them anything at all for the rest of their time. Why do people vote for them?
One Councillor in Launceston has described 'the money' as paltry and "about equivalent to a couple days a week's work" albeit that at the time nobody was willing to pay them anything at all for the rest of their days in the week.
SEE https://www.tic.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/402523/Councillor-Allowances-Review-Issues-Paper-January-2018.pdf
That Cr Spencer was alarmed enough to move the motion suggests that he was seeing something to be alarmed about. What is it? What is holding him back from articulating more fulsomely his alarm?
Listening in on the internet, people have remarked that it is extraordinary that essentially the Councillors could not vote for the motion because they could not give the time necessary to the implied replacement process. However, this raises a whole lot of rather uncomfortable questions about this 'current process' and it's perceived failures. What are they?
Moreover, the General Manager, in the Agenda Papers, mounted the most vehement argument against the motion. Typically this would ring alarm bells but the Councillors, except for Cr. Spencer, were happy enough to let this move for greater accountability pass them by.
Deputy Mayor, Cr Gibson, did move for an audit of the process but audits at Town Hall are rarely reported on, if ever. All too often these audits are 'internal affairs' that bring on thrashings with the proverbial 'wet lettuce leaf' at best.
If the Auditor General were to look at Launceston's tender processes carefully you would have to wonder about just what he was shown – what was on exhibit that week. Anyway this audit will probably be dragged out so as the world will have moved on to 'the next crisis' – and therefore unready to pay attention.
Are you likely to be fleet of foot whilst under serious scrutiny and with time being the great healer?
As for the Mayor and Cr. McKenzie, with their account's hats on, not seeing any merit in this motion, or not having an alternative on the ready, tells us something perhaps. Dare we go into that?
Perhaps when Cr. Dawkins talks about "danger" she may have actually been concerned about being held accountable sometime in the future. Now that is both an extraordinary idea and an interesting thought bubble to be caught up in.
Cr. Finlay's 'nothing to see here' support for the same old, same old tells us just about everything in that she is not up for rocking the boat. In times past she would have been moving this and that to draw attention to herself and her aspirations no matter how quirky. Well same old, same old really.
And, Cr. Tim Walker who is well known for his 'greenish strategics' again walked both sides of the street to live on for another day in the operational good books – and putting nothing up as a stake.
All we can do when we say our prayers inn the evening is to ask for the sky to fall in on complacency. Someone said somewhere that good luck is when opportunity meets preparation, while bad luck is when lack of preparation meets reality. So, what do we pray for?
One Councillor in Launceston has described 'the money' as paltry and "about equivalent to a couple days a week's work" albeit that at the time nobody was willing to pay them anything at all for the rest of their days in the week.
SEE https://www.tic.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/402523/Councillor-Allowances-Review-Issues-Paper-January-2018.pdf
That Cr Spencer was alarmed enough to move the motion suggests that he was seeing something to be alarmed about. What is it? What is holding him back from articulating more fulsomely his alarm?
Listening in on the internet, people have remarked that it is extraordinary that essentially the Councillors could not vote for the motion because they could not give the time necessary to the implied replacement process. However, this raises a whole lot of rather uncomfortable questions about this 'current process' and it's perceived failures. What are they?
Moreover, the General Manager, in the Agenda Papers, mounted the most vehement argument against the motion. Typically this would ring alarm bells but the Councillors, except for Cr. Spencer, were happy enough to let this move for greater accountability pass them by.
Deputy Mayor, Cr Gibson, did move for an audit of the process but audits at Town Hall are rarely reported on, if ever. All too often these audits are 'internal affairs' that bring on thrashings with the proverbial 'wet lettuce leaf' at best.
If the Auditor General were to look at Launceston's tender processes carefully you would have to wonder about just what he was shown – what was on exhibit that week. Anyway this audit will probably be dragged out so as the world will have moved on to 'the next crisis' – and therefore unready to pay attention.
Are you likely to be fleet of foot whilst under serious scrutiny and with time being the great healer?
As for the Mayor and Cr. McKenzie, with their account's hats on, not seeing any merit in this motion, or not having an alternative on the ready, tells us something perhaps. Dare we go into that?
Perhaps when Cr. Dawkins talks about "danger" she may have actually been concerned about being held accountable sometime in the future. Now that is both an extraordinary idea and an interesting thought bubble to be caught up in.
Cr. Finlay's 'nothing to see here' support for the same old, same old tells us just about everything in that she is not up for rocking the boat. In times past she would have been moving this and that to draw attention to herself and her aspirations no matter how quirky. Well same old, same old really.
And, Cr. Tim Walker who is well known for his 'greenish strategics' again walked both sides of the street to live on for another day in the operational good books – and putting nothing up as a stake.
All we can do when we say our prayers inn the evening is to ask for the sky to fall in on complacency. Someone said somewhere that good luck is when opportunity meets preparation, while bad luck is when lack of preparation meets reality. So, what do we pray for?
T. Alen
IN THE EXAMINER Paul Spencer only one to vote to disband council's tender review committee
Tarlia Jordan
..........................
A move to disband the City of Launceston council's tender review committee by one of its councillors has been lost.
..........................
The motion, put forward by Councillor Paul Spencer, was lost after he was the only person to vote for it at Thursday's council meeting.
..........................
However, deputy mayor Danny Gibson moved an alternate motion for an audit of the committee that passed unanimously. It is understood there was a review of the committee scheduled for the end of last year.
..........................
Councillor Tim Walker seconded the original motion for the purposes of having the discussion.
..........................
The original motion asked for all tenders more than $10,000 to be brought to the council for a decision, rather than the panel.
..........................
Councillor Jim Cox, who chairs the tender committee, said the committee was the third step in the tender process after the council calls for project tenders and tenders submitted, then it goes before a panel of council officers.
..........................
Councillor Andrea Dawkins said disbanding the committee based on the experience around the table was "dangerous" because not all the councillors would be the council in the future.
..........................
Councillors Hugh McKenzie and Cr Gibson, who have both sat on the committee previously, said they had seen continued improvement in how the process works. Councillor Janie Finlay said she also had confidence in the current tender process.
..........................
Councillor Nick Daking and Cr Spencer also sit on the committee.
..........................
All councillors spoke about the item, except Councillor Karina Stojansek. Councillor Rob Soward was not at the meeting.
No comments:
Post a Comment