OPEN LETTER TO MINISTER FOR LOCAL GOVT. ET AL

If you agree with the proposition being presented to government please either:

Copy the text below, modify it if you wish and email your concerns to Minister Shelton and others via

• eMAIL Shelton, Minister (DPaC) Minister.Shelton@dpac.tas.gov.au 
• CC Elise Archer MP elise.archer@parliament.tas.gov.au ... Auditor General [Tas] admin@audit.tas.gov.au

OR via post to:

• Department of Premier & Cabinet
• ATTN: Minister for Local Govt, Attorney General and Auditor General
• C/- 5 Murray St, Hobart TAS 7000

THE DRAFT LETTER

Dear Minister, Attorney General and Auditor General, 

We write to draw your attention to the growing disquiet in the Launceston Municipality generally in regard to the potentially dire financial circumstances the city, and the municipality in general. faces as a consequence the current and pending economic downturn. 

Looking ahead, we are particularly concerned about the impact that this current crisis is likely to have upon the long term wellbeing of ratepayers and residents – the business community, service providers, et al – relative to planning processes, service provision and the changed and changing circumstances in the city, the region and in fact, Tasmania generally. .

Of immediate concern is the way the City of Launceston Council is currently managing the financial collateral damage flowing from the COVID-19 Crisis and the ways that is increasingly becoming evident. 

The fiscal measures in train, and in prospect, have all the characteristics of ad hoc decision making with ratepayers and residents looking forward to ominous outcomes across the board in an environment of discretionary transparency and non-mandatory accountability. 

We understand that the City of Launceston is proposing to appoint an auditor to investigate and report on Council’s current grants program after the process in train is completed. 

We also understand that the CEO is proposing that he, rather than Council’s elected representatives, appoint the auditor who apparently will be briefed by him and consequently report to him in isolation from the Councillors. By extension, ratepayers and residents, the people who are required to carry the financial and social burdens, will essentially excluded from the process if this were to be the case. 

We enthusiastically endorse the concept that there should be an audit of the City of Launceston’s operational outcomes. 

Furthermore, we believe that such an audit needs to be undertaken independently, with the terms of reference determined at arm’s length from the Council’s operation imperatives and be undertaken in two phases: 
• Phase one, focused of Council’s response to the ‘economic disruption’ brought on by the COVID-19 Crisis; 
• Phase two, focused on the fiscal realities of the municipality’s economies and the long term economic sustainability of Council operations within the municipality. 

Phase one, needs to be reported on early in the audit process and 
Phase two needs to be a more thorough investigation albeit conducted within an appropriate timeframe. 

Against this background, we request that the auditor be:
• Recruited commissioned and appointed by Council in collaboration
• Briefed by Council in collaboration with the State Government in an open and transparent process at an ordinary meeting of Council;
 • Briefed to undertake a forensic audit and specifically in regard to Council’s capital works projects such as Riverbend Park, Quadrant Mall, Civic Square and the Brisbane Street Mall;
• Briefed to investigate the application of and implementation of Section 62 Tasmania’s Local Government Act 1993 by the General Manager/Chief Executive Officer;
• Briefed to investigate Council’s strategic purpose in regard to the acquisition of the property known as the ‘Birchalls building’ – 118 -122 Brisbane Street Launceston.
•  Briefed to report to Council in an open and transparent process at ordinary meetings of Council.

We respectfully request that you use your authority to do whatever is necessary to ensure that that an appropriate audit is implemented in a timely way in order to facilitate better planning in the context of the city’s current circumstances and economic outlook looking forward.

Furthermore, we ask this given that we are increasingly aware that in regard to ‘fiscal matters’ there is a growing number of people who no longer “trust the authorities” and this is a matter that requires urgent attention given all that is at stake.

Yours sincerely

INTERESTING STUFF SOCIAL MEDIA

AND THE NUMBER IS 

CLIMBING QUITE FAST

Mayor van Zetten, COVID-19 Crisis and Grant Contention

At the City Council meeting on 2 April 2020, councillors voted to pass a 'Community Care and Recovery Package - Covid-19 Pandemic', which included a 'multi-faceted grants program', of over $650,000 involving grants of $1,000 and $7,000, for 'Launceston businesses and groups', to focus on "Digital Innovation Grants" and "Circular Economy Grants". 

All Councillors voted on the main motion covering this Package, but due to a declaration of interest, Crs Dawkins and McKenzie withdrew from discussion on Point 7 of the Package. The introduction of the grants part of the package was generally welcomed by the Community.

The lengthy application form clearly stated that the closing date was 2 pm on 30 April. People who met the criteria for the grants began working on their applications, meeting the criteria, preparing costings, quotes etc - after all, they were under the impression that they had 4 weeks to do that considerable work.

But this was NOT the case. Within three working days, it was a different story. Applications for the larger $7,000 grant closed, without warning, without waiting until 30 April to receive all applications and to assess them properly.

According to Mayor Van Zetten on the Council's FaceBook on 7 April "We are unfortunately having to hit the pause on accepting any more applications" for the $7000 grants. That meant that a large number of business owners were left high and dry, feeling cheated and angry.

Is this how the council treats its small business owners? Is this the council's view of accountability? Some people have already received their grants, so why hasn't a list been been published in the media of the successful applicants? 

Who decided on which applicants got the money? Who takes responsibility for declaring applications should close weeks early and without warning - the Mayor, the councillors, the senior officers? See the comments and questions asked by L'ton Concerned Citizens at https://lcc63.blogspot.com/ "

Against the background that this $650,000 is money provided by the city's ratepayers and residents a lot of questions need to be asked to put these grants in context.

This money is not the Council's money and it didn't fall out of the sky, it was hard won by ratepayers!

So, to the questions:
• Who made the decision about who would get a grant in order to recommend their payment to the elected representatives?
• What information did the applicants provide and where is that information documented?
• What business case were the applicants required to present in order to be eligible for consideration?
• Who are successful applicants and what class of business do they operate?
• When will ratepayers and the unsuccessful applicants discover who got what for what?
• What guarantees does Council have that the money provided will be used for the purpose for which it was provided?
• When are the recipients' due to report to Council that they have fulfilled their obligation to use the money for the purpose for which it was provided and on what evidence?
• When will Council report to ratepayers on the success or otherwise of this initiative and in accord with what criteria?
• Which Councillors are prepared to unreservedly endorse this process as an appropriate use of ratepayer's funds under the current circumstance?

CLICK HERE TO GO TO SOURCE

COMMENT: Now compare and contrast what the City of Launceston has done with a whole lot of contention and warped administration in evidence. Once the SPEAK UP questions are answered there are many more arising that will need dealing with eventually.

West Tamar, Meander Valley councils approve COVID-19 hardship policies Harry Murtough .

Both the West Tamar Council and Meander Valley Council have approved measures to support ratepayers in their municipalities during the coronavirus pandemic. .

The West Tamar Council unanimously approved it's Community Care and Recovery Package.

Both councils approved the adoption of a financial hardship policy to support individuals struggling due to the coronavirus.

The hardship policy can postpone rate payments, remit rates or remit late rate payments or penalty interest.

The postponement of rates would be paid back after a period of time either in full or in parts. .

Remission of rates, according to the policy, would only be considered for "the most serious and exceptional of financial hardship cases."

Residents of both municipalities need proof of sufficient hardship to be eligible for the policy.

Residents can apply for the West Tamar's policy online or print and submit a form at wtc.tas.gov.au, call 6383 6350 or 6323 9300 for assistance.

The West Tamar's package also approved the fast tracking of a number of small capital projects for this and next financial year valued at $2 million.

Coronavirus: All the latest updates on COVID-19 for Tasmania
According General Manager Rolf Vos' report, the fast-tracking of said projects will assist by providing op

Projects to be fast-tracked include $264,000 worth of road resealing works, $20,000 of work on Kelso foreshore floodgates improvements and $60,500 on shaft sealing works at the Beaconsfield Mine and Heritage Centre.

Certain commercial and recreational properties will not be charged rates until September 30. .

Doctors and supermarkets, among other businesses, are excluded from the remission.

CLICK HERE TO LINK TO THE EXAMINER STORY

Some letters to ponder

COMMENT: What Mr Collier should spend a little time thinking about is that quite apart from the raking dredging up a whole lot of 'sanitary products' lying in wait in the mud, the process liberated enough toxins and heavy metals to threaten marine life all the way down to the estuary’s mouth.

He is silent about such things and resists the evidence that the silt has been there for millennia and that since colonial times so-called management practices have been serially defeated. Even Lachlan Macquarie got stuck in the mud in 1811. 

 So, somewhat appropriately, his letter was published on April 1.

If you are going to comment about an environmental issue it is quite a good idea to look at it from multiple vantage points. If we are to do that he might have admonished the City of Launceston for imagining the river as an open sewer for as long as there has been a colonial settlement at the confluence of two rivers and an estuary. 

However, M Collier holds another view along with his cronies down at the Flat Earth Society.

Groom the mud by all means but let’s not stir it up!

However, Estelle Ross is quite right in giving Launceston’s recalcitrant Councillors and GM a stir-up over Council inappropriately giving way to the GM and allowing shonky planning decisions to go unchallenged. He said he wouldn’t use the power, so why grant it?

COVID-19is telling us loud and clear where all the waywardness is and we might see letters yet like Estelle’s and perhaps more informed ones from Mr Collier.

T. Alen

Tamar Raking Waste April 8

JIM Collier once again attempts to rewrite history with his lack of recall (The Examiner, April 1)

He should recall how the Flood Authority and Launceston City Council had to be bailed out to complete the flood levies.

I would not lobby for another million-dollar report into the silt. I did successfully lobby the Attorney General for the money which actually saved businesses and residents of Invermay in 2016. When the Attorney said to me that he had already promised me millions for the levy, I told him there was no point in having part of a levy that argument worked.

I would not lobby for funds to rake the Tamar, which I knew would not work.

Raking has wasted millions of yours and my taxpayer funds as anyone with an ounce of nous, can see at low tide.

Geoff Lyons, Riverside.

Launceston City Council

I AM very concerned to read in (The Examiner, April 6) that decisions for planning applications could bypass the Launceston City Council meetings.

Instead, three people, the CEO, community and place general manager and the city development officer who are not elected representatives of the community, have been given the power to pass or reject DA's.

It is certainly not democratic and there is no need for this to happen as nowadays teleconferencing is widely available.

Estelle Ross, Riverside.

Trevallyn Dam Examiner April 1

ROSS Warren struggles "to comprehend how the commissioning of Trevallyn Power Scheme in 1955 has had such a dramatic detrimental effect on siltation in the Tamar estuary" (The Sunday Examiner, March 24).

The answer is simple; reducing freshwater flows through the Cataract Gorge (Launceston's greatest natural asset) has allowed salinity to encroach further into the Tamar's upper reaches thus permitting earlier flocculation of the suspended sediment.

Reduced flows have also eliminated natural scouring of the sediment once derived from historic South Esk River flows, as it has with the natural flushing of toxic contaminants from the Yacht Basin.

Additionally, and according to Hydro Tasmania's 1999 Environmental Flow Review, reduced water flows brought about by Trevallyn Dam have changed the entire eco-system of the Cataract Gorge confirmed by the fact that macro-invertebrates in the gorge at the time of the Review had reduced by an incredible 58 per cent; goodness knows how bad the situation is today?

Trevallyn Dam has had a catastrophic and devastating effect on the Cataract Gorge and the Tamar's upper reaches; no doubt whatsoever.

Jim Collier, Legana.

LAUNCESTON COUNCIL MEETINGS: QUESTIONS ARISING

Until the city of Launceston can no longer justify the level of accountability and transparency in leaving the recording online CLICK HERE to access the recording.

Questions Arising

1 Why did the GM/CEO, acting as the meeting's Secretary, personalise the ratepayers' questions to the meeting and attribute them to the organisations' President as if they were his questions, his alone, and not questions posed on behalf of ratepayers and residents and drawn from ratepayers representations?

2 Also, given the nature of the COVID-19 Crisis and its impact upon the municipality's ratepayers' economic viability, why aren't staff salary reviews being considered at all levels? Indeed, what justification is there for not considering salary reviews relevant to the changed status of an officer/staffer in the obviously changed and changing circumstances relevant to the COVID-19 Crisis and the shifts evident relevant to social, financial and cultural realities currently and looking ahead?

3 In addition, is it appropriate, or in fact relevant, to dismiss a question asking about the duties and services that staff are employed or indeed redeployed to carry out and/or provide? In fact, was the dismissal an indication that Council regards the provision of such information as something that is not a relevant or legitimate concern for the municipality's ratepayers and residents?

4 Why might not the GM/CEO have been able to, possibly still unable to, provide an overview of what Council is exploring/considering in regard to repositioning its operation relevant to the COVID-19 Crisis currently and looking ahead beyond the need to observe social distancing?

5 Given the generous budget provisions in the 2019/2020 budget for marketing and external expert advice, not considering experts employed employed directly by Council, was the mode of presentation the most appropriate or the best possible relative to currently accessible technologies? In fact, was this a demonstration of Council's 21st Century technical competence and capability?

6 Is this meeting model, with adjustments in a post social distancing circumstance, to be a method used for community engagement?

7 Taking Cr Walker's concerns expressed during the meeting in consideration of the relevance of and the need for Council to delegate any further authority to the GM/CEO over and above his current power to disregard Council policy and strategic determinations, that are in use and have been used outside an emergency circumstance, was the delegation either appropriate or even necessary? In fact, what circumstance, in the context of the COVID-19 Crisis does the GM/CEO expect to actually need for this power over and above an beyond his current powers which in fact render the elected representatives functionally powerless in the wake of powers in the 1993 Act?

8 Taking the circumstance of the COVID-19 Crisis into account why wouldn't Council need to meet more frequently, rather than less frequently, given the GM/CEO's forecast of "unpredictability" looking forward months rather than a few weeks? In fact, the Council should, or could , be meeting weekly using current technology and enabling constituents to make contributions online, even indicate support or otherwise for a measure, so why isn't that opportunity being considered or on the agenda right now?

9 Given the circumstance of the COVID-19 Crisis and the flagged  "Community Care and Recovery Package" provisions, why is it focused upon, largely, Launceston's CBD when the entire municipality is being "rained on" and  only the CBD gets to be given an umbrella? In fact, Council has arguably overspent ratepayers investments via rates and eligible grants on the CBD, so why is it that these ratepayers being disproportionately considered over and above most others?

10 Given the circumstance of the COVID-19 Crisis how can Council continue to support the GM/CEO's strategic realignment that effectively increases the salary levels of a so-called senior executive basically doing the same work but new branding and titles? In fact, how can Council justify paying the GM/CEO the equivalent of the State's Premier's salary PLUS something like the equivalent of minimum wage ($741.00 per week) over and above that PLUS other benefits? In addition, comparing the Premier's KPIs and the GM/CEO's KPI's is this level of payment justifiable ad if so how can it be justified given the changed and changing circumstances?

11 Given the circumstance of the COVID-19 Crisis and budget outcomes in recent times that have regularly exceeded the GM/CEO's salary level by something in the order of something like  threefold for every million dollar overrun, and there have been multiple overruns exceeding several millions, how can Council justify expending ratepayers funds on executive salaries at current levels?

12 Given the circumstance of the COVID-19 Crisis, and beyond it, when can ratepayers expect Council to begin advising ratepayers and residents about what they can do rather imposing fees and penalties upon their constituency to support unsustainable property taxes etc. etc.?

13 Given that the Council is trusted with the community's investment in own collective wellbeing contributed via rates, taxes and fees, at what point will Councillors begin to consider that when determining appropriate policies and strategies relative to new and changing circumstances, economic and social circumstances, emerging in the wake of the COVID-19 Crisis?

14 Given that the Council is face with an unprecedented situation, and that its internal expert advice base cannot realistically provide the guarantees called for in Section 65 of the Local Govt. Act 1993, will Council actively seek community submissions for deliberation on open Council meetings. Alternatively, is Council proposing to continue to defer to the GM/CEO and accept all his written guarantees relative his advice being expert or provided by people he deems to have the required expertise?

NOTE: These questions hve been posed by various ratepayers and residents following the City of Launceston's meeting made available online. If others come to the association's attention they will be added to the list. Also, if Council provides answers to any of the questions the too will be posted. Please post your questions in the comments section below.

TWO COUNCILS ON THE TAMAR SHOW LEADERSHIP

COVID-19 Hardship Policy approved 

by George Town Council

• 

  Harry Murtough

Community

Both the George Town and West Tamar councils have indicated a zero per cent increase in general rates for the 2020/2021 financial year.

Support for the notion was given during a Local Government Association Tasmania meeting in March, not long after the City of Launceston Council approved its rates would not rise for the next financial year.

George Town mayor Greg Kieser said he anticipated George Town to follow suit along with fellow Northern councils in considering the idea.

"We don't have a motion at this stage in terms of our rating policy for next year, but I would not be at all surprised if we remained consistent and put through a zero per cent change," he said.

West Tamar mayor and LGAT president Christina Holmdahl also foresaw her municipality would not be increasing rates next year.

The George Town Council also approved it's first assistance measure for the coronavirus crisis at its March meeting.

The COVID-19 Hardship Policy was approved unanimously, and is aimed at providing flexibility in rate payments for those experiencing hardship due to the virus.

The policy can be valid for 12 months; Cr Kieser said many people in the community had been placed in vulnerable positions due to the virus.

"We acknowledge that it is a very challenging time for certain members of the community across the spectrum," he said.

Both Cr Holmdahl and Cr Kieser said further measures would be discussed in their councils.

"It's now a question of what we can afford," Cr Kieser said.

COMMENT: These two councils are providing leadership in holding down their rate demands. More importantly the elected representatives  have not abdicated their policy and strategic determination role in this crisis. All the signals are there that there is an atmosphere where deliberation within council and the community will be ongoing.

There are lessons there fot Launceston's Councillors. This is a space to be watched as the consequences of this COVID-19 start to really manifest themselves!