Alison Andrews heading in the Examiner yesterday "Aquatic centre in a sea of red" was very cold comfort for Launceston's ratepayers ... click here to read more"A $30,000 review has been urgently commissioned to find ways to stop the Launceston Aquatic Centre from bleeding $1.2 million a year." Again $30K seems like a magic number ... wasn't that what it cost the then GM, Frank Dixon, for dancers to open the place?
Launceston City Council's newish GM, Robert Dobrzynski "wants their (the consultants') recommendations on his desk by early next month so that there is time to use their findings in the preparation of the council budget for next financial year." Word has it that he's already told them what they must tell him but there you go that's how bureaucracy works these days – expensive consultant advice at almost every turn.
Now ratepayers told Council – Aldermen & officers – back in August 2007 in a MEDIA RELEASE that this foolhardy venture was bound to cost ratepayers dearly. Trouble is it was FREE ADVICE and totally dismissible because it came from ratepayers ... click here to read the 2007 Media Release
Curiously, Mr Dobrzynski's allies, as he sees it on this issue, are most likely to be "the ratepayers" since there are Aldermen who would prefer to keep all this stuff behind closed doors – especially in an election year. He knows that if this happens he'll end up wearing all the odium of poor Aldermanic decision-making down the line. This is demonstrated by the trouble he is having getting a unanimous Aldermanic tick of approval for a public consultation meeting for the 2011-2012 budget.
You see quite a few of them believe in the 'Divine Right of Aldermen' and the abdication theory. That is the one that goes, ratepayers have voted us in so we do not need to consult them because in voting for us they passed all responsibility to us. Apparently, in this theory accountability is discretionary.
It appears that the aquatic centre was over budget by more than $416,000 for the last quarter alone, with fears that the annual loss will rise above $1.2 million. However, down at Town Hall the budget process is a lot to do with smoke and mirrors and the REAL LOSSES are likely to be much greater if all the project's costs are counted – and they are not likely to be. It seems "quality assurance" and "performance assessments" are sensitive terms.
It also seems that the Aldermen, like mushrooms, are in the dark here and fed copious quantities of male bovine excrement. There are good arguments to suggest that the FULL cost of the centre have been hidden away for some reason.
Back in 2007, when ratepayers predicted all this, Launceston's ratepayers were never told about the full costs of the project or that they will be subsidising and paying off this Regional facility forever at the rate of some $86 per ratepayer per annum. As rates rise there are fewer places to hide as ratepayer turn over more rocks looking accountability.
It was time then but isn't it also about time now that all of Launceston ratepayers were democratically and directly polled on this project – its an election year remember. Or, do we need a 1,000 signature petition to hold a plebiscite to vote on the future of the Aquatic Centre? Or, do we need to indulge in civic amnesia for the benefit of the Aldermen who championed this diabolical, and ego boosting, project in the face of contrary advice, reason and logic.
This is but one issue but let's see if Mr Dobrzynski gets his public consultation meeting on the budget, and if he does, let's see what it reveals. General Managers go and new ones come but many of the Aldermen who burdened the ratepayers with an aquatic centre they could ill afford are still there. Let's see them scurrying for cover in coming weeks as their budget strategies ( past & present) unfold and unravel.
In the end there is no comfort at all in being able to say "I told you so."
Launceston City Council's newish GM, Robert Dobrzynski "wants their (the consultants') recommendations on his desk by early next month so that there is time to use their findings in the preparation of the council budget for next financial year." Word has it that he's already told them what they must tell him but there you go that's how bureaucracy works these days – expensive consultant advice at almost every turn.
Now ratepayers told Council – Aldermen & officers – back in August 2007 in a MEDIA RELEASE that this foolhardy venture was bound to cost ratepayers dearly. Trouble is it was FREE ADVICE and totally dismissible because it came from ratepayers ... click here to read the 2007 Media Release
Curiously, Mr Dobrzynski's allies, as he sees it on this issue, are most likely to be "the ratepayers" since there are Aldermen who would prefer to keep all this stuff behind closed doors – especially in an election year. He knows that if this happens he'll end up wearing all the odium of poor Aldermanic decision-making down the line. This is demonstrated by the trouble he is having getting a unanimous Aldermanic tick of approval for a public consultation meeting for the 2011-2012 budget.
You see quite a few of them believe in the 'Divine Right of Aldermen' and the abdication theory. That is the one that goes, ratepayers have voted us in so we do not need to consult them because in voting for us they passed all responsibility to us. Apparently, in this theory accountability is discretionary.
It appears that the aquatic centre was over budget by more than $416,000 for the last quarter alone, with fears that the annual loss will rise above $1.2 million. However, down at Town Hall the budget process is a lot to do with smoke and mirrors and the REAL LOSSES are likely to be much greater if all the project's costs are counted – and they are not likely to be. It seems "quality assurance" and "performance assessments" are sensitive terms.
It also seems that the Aldermen, like mushrooms, are in the dark here and fed copious quantities of male bovine excrement. There are good arguments to suggest that the FULL cost of the centre have been hidden away for some reason.
Back in 2007, when ratepayers predicted all this, Launceston's ratepayers were never told about the full costs of the project or that they will be subsidising and paying off this Regional facility forever at the rate of some $86 per ratepayer per annum. As rates rise there are fewer places to hide as ratepayer turn over more rocks looking accountability.
It was time then but isn't it also about time now that all of Launceston ratepayers were democratically and directly polled on this project – its an election year remember. Or, do we need a 1,000 signature petition to hold a plebiscite to vote on the future of the Aquatic Centre? Or, do we need to indulge in civic amnesia for the benefit of the Aldermen who championed this diabolical, and ego boosting, project in the face of contrary advice, reason and logic.
This is but one issue but let's see if Mr Dobrzynski gets his public consultation meeting on the budget, and if he does, let's see what it reveals. General Managers go and new ones come but many of the Aldermen who burdened the ratepayers with an aquatic centre they could ill afford are still there. Let's see them scurrying for cover in coming weeks as their budget strategies ( past & present) unfold and unravel.
In the end there is no comfort at all in being able to say "I told you so."
