LETTER TO LCC ALDERMEN: QVMAG Collection & Deaccesion Policy Determination

TO: Mayor & Aldermen

Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 13:30:01

To: Ald. Albert van Zetten, LCC Records 

Cc: Peter Gutwein [Minister for Local Government], Phillip Hoysted ,Vanessa Goodwin [Minister for the Arts]

Dear Albert,

I have written to the General Manager last Monday (copied below) asking a relatively simple and straight forward question and one that only he has the information required to answer it. I’ve not received a response or even an acknowledgement of the receipt of my email. The draft(?) collection policy provided to me by Richard Mulvaney some time ago is also attached here as I had attached it to my email to the GM. CLICK HERE TO SEE A COPY

The substance of the question goes to the appropriateness of the QVMAG, as a Publicly Funded Cultural keepingplace, operating in the 21st C without, in my opinion, a contemporaneously relevant collection policy. There are no other policy positions more important to a cultural institution such as the QVMAG than its Collection Policies and by extension its Deaccession Policy and its consequent management processes.

Furthermore, for whatever extraordinary reason, it appears that ‘management’ has determined that it is appropriate (convenient?) to embed the institution’s Deaccession  Policy within the Collection Policy. I suggest that once expertly scrutinised other concerns are likely to emerge relative to the kind of ‘policy’ somewhat reluctantly(?) provided to me at my request but seemingly unavailable to other interested parties – at least not easily or freely.

Over recent years I have been advocating the review and renewal of the QVMAG Collection and Deaccession Policies. As the QVMAG Trustees you are accountable to the institution’s constituency – ratepayers, taxpayers, donors, sponsors researchers, scholars, et al.–  and thus it is incumbent upon you to ensure that you are receiving appropriate advice upon which you can make your decisions – independent advice, expert advice, considered advice. 

This is especially so when it comes to ‘policy determination’ and the review of management outcomes relative to ‘Trustee determined advice’.

As Trustees and ‘stewards’ of a collection that is significant in the context of collections that collectively constitute the ‘national cultural estate’ I put it to you that:

1. The policies you put in place need to be relevant to contemporaneous cultural sensibilities and sensitivities;
2. Alert to policy making elsewhere that is consistent with ‘best practice’ at work in public cultural institutions;
3. The policies you put in place need to be in the public domain and provide the level security reasonably expected of the institution by its constituency;
4. Policy determinations undertaken by you need to happen in a timely way and mindful of ‘the trust’ that is invested in you as the Trustees of the QVMAG collections; and

especially so in regard to SECTION 65 of the Tasmania’s Local Govt. Act. Furthermore, all this is relevant to the ways Section 65 can be, or has been, applied to the stewardship of QVMAG collections and your policy determinations in respect to the QVMAG, one of Australia’s significant cultural institutions.

This is a matter that I’ve raised in various Council forums over time and that have by-and-large gone unanswered and I put it to you that is evidenced in the policy document attached. Also, in the light of aspirations articulated over time, and recently, in regard to the “rationalisation” of the QVMAG collections recent developments pose particular concerns in regard as to how that might be done generally, and in particular in accord with what ‘policies’, by what processes and in what timeframe.

I look forward to Council’s response, indeed your response as Trustees, to the situation I put before you with considerable interest and concern.

Regards,

Ray Norman

zingHOUSEunlimited

The lifestyle design enterprise and research network

 Trevallyn TAS. 7250

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Forwarded Message

From: Ray Norman

Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 17:19:20 

To: Robert Dobrzynski 

Subject: QVMAG Collection & Deaccesion Policy

Dear Robert,

I write to you as the manager concerned with facilitating the preparation of LCC Agenda papers. As you may be aware I have an interest in the QVMAG’s Collection Policy and the Deaccession Policy now embedded within it – See attachment proved to me by Richard Mulvaney 21.04.2015. I’m aware that this policy has been under development for a very long time. This year I enquired about its development in January and to my knowledge the policy has not yet been presented to the Aldermen/Trustees for their consideration.

For some context to my question:

• Ignoring previous correspondence with Richard Mulvaney and yourself I have been seeking information in regard to the QVMAG Collection and Deaccession Poilicy(ies) since February 2014;
• Early in March 2014 , as a  member of the MGAB,  I received information via Richard Mulvaney that there was an in-house QVMAG Collections Policy under development that included a Deaccesion component;
• Early in April 2014 , as a  member of the MGAB, I provided Richard Mulvaney with suggestions for a redraft of the QVMAG Collections Policy;
• In January this year, 2015, I requested  a progress report on the policy and it be presented to the Aldermen/Trustees; and
• In late April I received “the Collection Policy“ that I’m given to understand will at some time be presented to the Aldermen/Trustees for endorsement/approval/implementation with it being “approved by the [QVMAG?] Executive Management Committee 18/02/2015”.

Interestingly, against this background there does not appear to be any evidence that the MGAB has formally considered this/these policies and clearly the progress towards ‘Trustee approval” has been glacial for whatever reasons none of which, I put to you, can be attributed to the complexity of the policy as it stands.

The key question arising out of the above is to do with the appropriateness of the policy and by extension, what independent ‘expert advice’ will you be relying upon when this policy is indeed presented to the Aldermen/Trustees for their consideration. As you have reminded me on several occasion it is your role to ensure this “expert advice” and I am, along with the Aldermen/Trustees I presume, keen to know what the source of that advice may be.

I look forward to your early advice on this matter as I believe that it something of considerable importance at this time.

Regards,

Ray Norman

zingHOUSEunlimited

The lifestyle design enterprise and research network

 Trevallyn TAS. 7250

End Message

RATE EQUITABILITY!

THE Northern Midlands Council is asking Launceston Airport operators to pay up on more than two years of outstanding rates. 

This is according to the council, which has been seeking a meeting with federal Infrastructure Minister Warren Truss to intervene in the matter for some months. 

Paul Hodgen, general manager of the Launceston Airport, which is owned by Australia Pacific Airports Corporation, said on Tuesday he could not comment because the matter was before the courts ... CLICK HERE READ MORE

There must be sympathy expressed for NMC ratepayers because otherwise, quite apart from the catchup payments of 2 years, it means that rates charged to other ordinary ratepayers will have to increase by 6% to cover the deficit.

Also the value of the Municipal Area as determined by the Valuer General is increased by the improved value of the Launceston Airport hence charges such as the Fire Services Levy charged by the State Government via NMC has to be spread over the remaining ratepayers, yet another deficit.

We also have sympathy for other municipalities such as Launceston, who have more than their fair allocation of non-ratepaying entities such as the University of Tasmania who do not pay the extra charges either, adding $millions to the rate burden of the long-suffering battlers there who pay the highest rates in the country, not to mention the Regional Facilities they fund for the benefit of Northern Tasmania.

Perhaps one day the principle of fairness will be applied across the board in all municipalities?

Lionel Morrell
President, Tasmanian Ratepayers Association Inc.

WHEN WILL LAUNCESTON'S ALDERMEN STAND UP FOR RATEPAYERS?

BLOG EDITORS' NOTES: There is increasing evidence that Launceston's Aldermen are being treated with disregard and contempt by management. This year's budget process is clearly one whee the 'officers' have set the income levels they want and have immunised themselves against close scrutiny. 

The proposed budget is as ex-Alderman Ian Routley has said is an "officers budget", its nothing more, nor anything less.  

In effect the officers are asking the Aldermen for a SLUSH FUND to maintain the present level of funding PLUS 2.5% when the CPI is less than 1%. AND these people imagine themselves as PUBLIC SERVANTS.  Someday this unaccountability must STOP!

The call for an administrator to be appointed for Launceston City Council has increasing relevance as each day passes based on the evidence before ratepayers looking for accountability!

CLICK HERE TO GO TO SOURCE

THE president of the Tasmanian Ratepayers Association has called into question the Launceston City Council's management abilities after the organisation revealed it may increase its burial prices by 90 per cent over four years. 

The council's 2015-16 draft budget papers include a proposal to increase the Carr Villa and Lilydale Cemetery plot rates by 15 per cent in 2014-15 and 25 per cent in 2015-16. 

It was reported Saturday that people within the sector confirmed the rates were proposed to rise by 25 per cent a year for the next three years.

Tasmanian Ratepayers Association president Lionel Morrell said it was apparent the council had a budgeting issue. 

"Launceston is the largest and wealthiest municipality in Tasmania and it cannot balance its books," he said. 

"It's a question of their ability to manage the place, it's a question of why they're not increasing cremation prices at the same rate as burials and it's criticising their maintenance standards - there hasn't been enough care taken in maintaining and developing the cemetery for some time." 

Launceston City Council general manager Robert Dobrzynski said the council was determined to ensure Carr Villa's financial sustainability. 

He said burials carried costs not associated with cremations, including ongoing maintenance. "The facility is currently running at a loss of $350,000 which is being subsidised by Launceston ratepayers in the rates they pay, despite the facility serving the entire region," he said. 

"The City of Launceston commissioned an independent benchmarking study of cemeteries across Tasmania and around Australia which found our fee structure was well below other cemeteries." 

Submissions to the draft budget papers will be discussed at a committee meeting on Monday

–  END  – 

LETTER TO THE EDITOR ­ Reimagining Inveresk

Sirs,

Speculation about the university colonising the QVMAG site to reimagine the Inveresk site, speculation that sparked Rosita Gallach’s story this week, demonstrates Launceston Council’s vulnerability to penny-pinching coercion.
 
In deals like the ones being wondered about at Inveresk, they typically have the university seeing itself operating from the high moral ground with Launceston’s ratepayers being the vulnerable soft targets.
 
If there is to be any fairness in the university colonising the QVMAG’s, indeed Launcestonian’s, heritage assets at Inveresk in order for it to fulfil its aspiration to bring ‘Town & Gown’ closer together, well the university really needs to be offering some equitability.
 
For instance, albeit adjoining the QVMAG Royal Park campus, the Wellington Street TAFE building is hardly a fare nor equitable barter.
 
Alternatively, the Examiner’s soon to be evacuated heritage site might be a more fitting trade but either way the university needs to lead in a cooperative and collaborative investigation of the possible mutual re-imaginings.

Locating the museum next to the Paterson Street carpark would enhance the City’s heart in ways university lecture theatres and offices are unlikely to.

There are win-win outcomes to be had if they are looked for but there needs to equity from the get go.

Ray Norman
Trevallyn

http://www.examiner.com.au/story/3055557/the-word-is-that-inveresk-could-be-the-place-to-be/
The word is that Inveresk could be the place to be
By ROSITA GALLASCH May 4, 2015,

WITH an expanded modern university campus, student accommodation and a cinema complex on the way, Inveresk could become a major hub of activity for Launceston.

The University of Tasmania has made no secret of its plans for the Inveresk site and to expand its offerings at that location, but little has been said about the future of the Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery.

For those who haven't heard the whispers, it has been suggested that the university take over the space now occupied by the QVMAG at Inveresk.

The Launceston City Council-operated museum would then move next to its refurbished gallery at Royal Park and into the space occupied by TasTAFE offices, some courses and migrant classes.

Where those TasTAFE offices and courses go is anyone's guess, but most probably the Alanvale campus, leaving just hospitality and nursing courses next to Launceston College.

This would be a three-way deal between the university, the council and the state government.

In ongoing discussions around deregulation, the university's vice-chancellor Professor Peter Rathjen has already said the Northern campus loses money and, although universities are places of education and intellectual thought, they can only exist in a business context.

The university's Provost Professor Mike Calford said on ABC radio last Friday morning that the university envisioned a focus on three main schools in Launceston: education, nursing and architecture.

One of these is already based at Inveresk, and the other two could be easily moved there.

Although the School of Visual and Performing Arts is now at Inveresk, it makes no sense for it to remain with millions of dollars being poured into a hi-tech Tasmanian College of the Arts development in Hobart.

The potential move and little funding allocated in the council's draft budget towards works at the museum's Inveresk site could certainly lend itself to this idea.

There is $90,000 in capital works set aside for the QVMAG Inveresk site, which includes storage cases, a security swipe card system and a railway awning cover - certainly nothing of significance.

A further $46,000 has been allocated for works at the Wellington Street Royal Park site, including TasTAFE store roofing and downpipe repair and science collection store.

Although this is only $46,000, if the council was able to move into the Education Department building, it may alleviate some of the cost pressures it feels burdened with regarding the operation of a regional facility with little state government help.

The museum could be mothballed in the short term, as was the gallery, when refurbishment works were undertaken there.

Who pays for the department building to be refurbished to cater for the museum would remain something to be nutted out - and it would be no surprise at all if this remains in the too hard basket in the short term with no money on the horizon.

However, of course, the university is on a deadline to get its $15.6 million accommodation works at Inveresk completed in time for the start of the 2016 academic year, as part of the federal government's National Rental Affordability Scheme.

In late March, it was also reported that Metro Cinemas was keen to start building works at Inveresk for its 1000-seat complex.

The end result for the university and council could certainly be a new lease of life for Inveresk, as well as a consolidation of council and state government facilities.

CALL TO RELOCATE THE LAUNCESTON WAR MEMORIAL FROM ROYAL PARK TO TOWN POINT

Launceston Cenotaph By Rod Oliver – From Snapped: After Dark

It is long overdue for serious consideration to be given to the relocation of Launceston's War Memorial from its now compromised location at the edge of Royal Park in Paterson Street to a more prominent and appropriate site, such as the historic TOWN POINT at the junction of the Tamar and Esk Rivers.

Debate has ebbed and flowed over the years about whether the present site in Royal Park was appropriate, particularly since the construction of the Northern Outlet Road extended on from Bathurst Street and bisecting Royal park in that deep, noisy ravine, cutting off the memorial from parklands that once flowed to the river's edge.

The Examiner of August 28 1923 records the lonely dissent of Alderman Hart to the selection of the present site, that at that time had been requested to be granted by the War Memorial Committee for the erection of the memorial. Ald. Hart's objections referred to the need for a more prominent site for such an important use, comparing the obelisk design in that location as appearing as little more than "resembling a small chimney stack" that would inevitably require the removal of important trees, just so as to visible.

News a few days ago reported on the Federal's Government's expenditure of a very handsome sum to embellish the access to Hobart's War Memorial. That memorial's sitting on the prominent point extending into the Derwent River leads to my suggestion that Launceston's War Memorial ought be relocated to Town Point, our most prominent riverside juncture from where, at the nearby King's Wharf, our soldiers boarded the troop ships heading off to war via interstate training camps, having been brought up to Launceston by train from Brighton Camp and farewelled by their loved ones at the embarkment point.

Following the decision to clear the old wool stores from Town Point and the completion of the Town Point Flood Levees, this extensive space is about to be transformed into grandiose parklands, so what better, more prominent and more appropriate place historically, is there for our War Memorial , than Town Point?

A revision of the landscaping plans, already funded, could entail an impressive approach avenue, traditionally the setting for war memorials, and the Memorial, the illuminated centrepiece of all vistas from the surrounding amphitheatre of hills, at the precise junction of Launceston's three rivers.

Lionel Morrell Architect and Heritage Consultant, 41 High Street Launceston

Footnote: Trooper James Egbert Morrell, my grandfather, perished during the Great War of 1914 -1918 at Cairo, and is interred in the War Memorial Cemetery at Suez. 

THE QVMAG ON THE CUSP OF CHANGE?

The Proposed QVMAG Strategic Directions Committee

Reading the agenda for Launceston Council's next meeting this coming Monday April 27, it seems that Ald. Hugh McKenzie has finally bitten the QVMAG bullet and has put a motion before Council for the formation of a QVMAG Strategic Directions Committee (QVMAG SDC). CLICK HERE TO READ THE MOTION

"The City of Launceston's Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery" comes at a considerable cost to the city's ratepayers. Consequently, each and every Launcestonian ratepayer and resident has a vested interest in Ald. McKenzie's motion as long term investors and stakeholders in the QVMAG.

It is important to understand that the QVMAG has grown like 'Topsy' for year upon year and arguably without constraint – 2000 to 2010 by something in the order of 300%. Launceston City Council has typically and "proudly" claimed the place as its very own. Nonetheless, successive Councils have been comfortable enough imposing the increasing costs upon Launceston's ratepayers as these costs have grown exponentially. 

Despite this declared 'ownership' the the governance and management of the institution has become increasingly blurred and arguably to the institutions serious detriment. Likewise, the fiscal impost on ratepayers has become increasingly inequitable over time. So the prospect of change is pregnant with possibilities ... CLICK HERE TO READ A LETTER TO THE ALDERMEN

THE QVMAG WEBSITE: CLICK HERE

THE QVMAG FACEbook: CLICK HERE

THE QVMAG BLOG: CLICK HERE

THE GENERAL MANAGER AND FISCAL ACCOUNTABILITY

NOTE: This kind of letter usually gets lost in the melee and fobbed off as a 3rd rate issue. When an aldermen speaks out during a Council budget preparation time it might tell us something about what is going on in camera.

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

The Examiner "Reduction of staff" 

CLICK HERE

"WITH the upheaval of the Glenorchy Council front and centre, the general manager is pressing ahead with the reduction of senior management roles. 

l would simply ask this question, what is Launceston doing to reduce the $4.3 million operational deficit of our council? 

The first thing any sizeable business, and Launceston City Council is one, with a turnover of $100 million and a gaping wound in the bottom line, should do is look at staffing levels to reduce that repetitive debt level. 

"Form and function" reviews have a purpose but they will not achieve the end result and that is to bring this council back into the black, just as Glenorchy are trying to achieve. 

With the Mayor and Ald McKenzie being two very experienced accountants, l would like to hear from them and see what methodology they would embark upon to fix this problem. 

It is without doubt the elephant in the room, but no one is prepared to recognise the problem and confront the issue. l have raised this issue many times but the response has been deafening. 

— TED SANDS, Launceston City Council alderman."

Launceston's council's operational wing has been empire building for a very long time, years and years, and maybe this is the time where the chooks come home to roost and time for the rooster get his wings clipped. 

A great deal of a council's services could be sensibly outsourced. But getting the empire builders to curb their power lust, well that's going to be resisted.  It is a lot to ask of the self interested.

Launceston has the most expensive rates in Tasmania and in large part that is down to the conga line of empire builders our silly aldermen have employed and allowed to be employed. Time for all aldermen to get on the job and hold, really hold, the operational wing of council to account. 

However, aldermen, let us not throw the baby out with the bath water in the flurry to be accountable.

YES PLEASE, LET US HEAR MORE FROM MORE ALDERMEN!

HORROR! HORROR! HORROR!

Reading this report and looking at the options, this would have to be the most ridiculous proposal imaginable! 

WHAT!!?? ... $4M TO PARK 40 CARS(?) = $100,000/car. 

This is Public Money utterly wasted on a private development.

Traffic lights on the approach road to Paterson Bridge, exiting traffic up the Brisbane St Zigzag to Hill St then down Canning St back to the city.

What must the vista of this be from across the city? And that is without adding the Gondola terminus at the end, the viewing platform and the upper structure of the passenger Lift from the Penny Royal below !! This zannyness of the highest order!!

It must be noted that the officer’s recommendation is to NOT PROCEED with the funding request until after the Gorge Reimagining Project is concluded.

The list of follies in this proposal are too many by far to begin to discuss here but LCC spending this kind of money without there being a dividend to ratepayers would be stretching the 'friendship'(?) too far.

On the face of it NO PUBLIC MONEY should be invested in this project except that provided by investors on the prospect of a fiscal dividend. Aside from RATE RELIEF there are so many projects more deserving of ratepayers' hard earned dollars.

CLICK BELOW TO ACCESS THE REPORT: 

http://www.launceston.tas.gov.au/upfiles/lcc/cont/_council/council/council_meetings/council_meeting_agendas/27_april_2015/attachment_2__gorge_skylift_development_total_pages34.pdf

WASTE MANAGEMENT: A Local Government Specialisation in Tasmania

CLICK HERE TOP GO TO THIS ARTICLE'S SOURCE

Tasmanian Local Government has developed a specialisation that ratepayers could well do without. 

Launceston City Council is pretty much Top Dog in the 'Waste Management' stakes given that:

• it charges ratepayers for taking their left over resources; and 
• then manages to waste them on a monumental scale; and
• all the time boasting unsustainably about their credentials as "Waste Managers".

In the Mercury's  Saturday Soapbox: Landfill just a wasted opportunity ... SHANE HUMPHERYS MERCURY APRIL 18, 2015 12:00AM – Shane Humphery points out that "Tasmania has the worst record of diversion of waste from landfill in the nation, and we are going backwards. The most recent data demonstrates that as a state we divert little more than 10 per cent all our waste from landfill, while the national average approaches 60 per cent. With little in the way of recycling and reprocessing infrastructure, most of what is recycled has to be shipped interstate or to South-East Asia."

This is nowhere more evident than in the North of the State. Launceston City Council huffs and puffs its exemplary performance in "WASTE MANAGEMENT" and irony begins with the Council Division's name – WASTE MANAGEMENT CENTRE: The place where they manage to waste mega amounts of resources.

Some time ago at a public meeting Launceston's General Manager, Robert Dobrzynski, was asked if he would change the centre's name to "Resource Recovery Centre" like Councils all over are doing and very bluntly he said "NO!" He's been as good as his word as "Waste Centre" is still the brand. Mind you, the Aldermen over the years have not been able to, or willing to, make him change his mind!

At  Launceston's City Council's Waste Management Centre (LCC-WMC)  their so called 'TIP SOP' Utipity – a really really catchy name – is a 'no muck' version of what this sort of enterprise can do and does elsewhere. Its really nice, years and years in the planning, and it must be the only Goldplated ... well hot dipped zinc plated ... facility of its kind in Christendom. That'll cost the ratepayers a pretty penny with no dividends – in fact it has.

As Shane Humphery says in Landfill just a wasted opportunity "In truly efficient systems, waste is broken down and reconstructed, reprocessed and reused" and the 'waste' that cannot be expediently dealt with is an energy source. As he says, "If waste were not managed in this way in nature, biological and ecological systems would collapse rapidly."

But we get the Council we vote for! Or do we? The waste management paradigm that the Local Government system puts upon us is yet another reason for changing the system. The system is too inefficient, too much under the CONTROL of too many bureaucrats and too inclined towards unaccountability to persist with. 

There is no use advocating change to waste management until Local Government in Tasmania is TOTALLY RATIONALISED.

LAUNCESTON'S WASTE BLOT, LCC-WMC, AS SEEN FROM SPACE

LAUNCESTONIAN WHISPERS AT TOWN HALL

CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO ENLARGE

For some, the prospect of Launceston Council’s behaviours being referred to the Integrity Commission come way too late. 

It is hard to get the commission’s attention it seems but at last it looks like that the threat of The Commission arriving on the doorstep just might alter administrative and aldermanic behaviours somewhat.


There are some, including the odd Alderman, who find that Council minutes have been unsatisfactory for years.

The minutes are typically abbreviated, often to irrelevance, and one is left asking why could that be?

It has been the case for quite a long time down at Town Hall and if one queries the record keeping you tend to get the sort “technical” sidestep the General Manager offered at Monday’s meeting.

Interestingly the Mayor seems to agree that this sort of thing has been going on for a long time when he says the General Manager "was only doing what he had done previously."

If as he says "Mr Dobrzynsky has a history of being consistent in such matters, what is there to made of that?

Of course he had to support Ald. Finlay in her efforts to ensure procedural propriety but where was he looking on previous occasions? The other way perhaps? If so why so?

It is legend that the Town Hall bureaucracy has a tendency to be the tail that wags the dog but hapless ratepayer generally need to take the rough with the smooth. However now there is the prospect of the Integrity Commission to  hold Council to account.

If as the Mayor seems to be saying here, if he is quoted in context, the General Manager has a history of consistency in such things. What questions does that leave hanging?

Rather, the question might be, who is holding who in contempt?

Local Government, Citizens Panels and Participatory Citizenship

 SEE: http://yoursay.sa.gov.au/what-is-a-citizens-jury-all-about

In the last week or so  the newDEMOCRACY Foundation – http://newdemocracy.com.au/our-work – has come to the attention of the Ratepayers Association. What is really interesting  is the way that various communities are delivering impressive outcomes in Australia via ‘participatory citizenship.

One notable case being Melbourne City Council ... SEE http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/futuretense/citzens-juries-giving-power-to-the-people/5779168

It is not the association’s job here to advocate on behalf of the foundation as it is quite able to do that very well for itself via its community work, the outcomes it has assisted in realising and of course via its own WEBsite. Nonetheless, we believe that the foundation’s work should be better known and that Tasmania, like South Australia for instance, would be well served by engaging with the foundation.

More to the point, we believe that the evidence is there for the concept of participatory citizenship, deservedly, winning increasing support. On the evidence participatory citizenship, via citizen’s juries and citizens panels, deserve to be proactively encouraged and especially so in regard to Local Govt . and the resolution of contentious issues.

Currently the issue of Tasmania’s over governance in regard to Local Govt. is on people’s minds. Tasmania’s Liberal Government’s  disposition not to force amalgamation is politically understandable. However, given recent press reports regarding the largess Aldermen/Councillors are able to afford themselves it is not too surprising that many in Local Govt. would wish to maintain the status quo.

After that, it is clear that Tasmania’s Council memberships, and the senior management of Tasmania’s Councils, have a clear conflict of interest that is working against achieving anything more than cosmetic change. The prospect of achieving consensual amalgamation and change has powerful forces working against it – largely fuelled by self interest – and speculatively driven by General Managers et al who would loose their jobs in the cause of fiscal efficiency.

Likewise, council members are unlikely to work all that hard to bring on this kind of change. Rather they could be expected to maintain the status quo until or unless their constituency persuaded them that that they would be better off under some changed arrangement. Chance would be a fine thing! Arguably, incumbency and self interest are working together here and mitigating against possibly even cosmetic change.

The newDEMOCRACY Foundation's core offer to elected representatives is its willingness to operate an innovative democratic processes on a non-commercial basis. It does this on the basis of a predefined level of authority being devolved to the citizens who participate. There are processes currently underway and others that have delivered their outcomes.

Thinking of Tasmania’s situation in regard to the rationalisation and improved accountability of Local Government there are a number entry points through which participatory citizenship could be profitably tested.

The most obvious issue which might be referred to a ‘citizen’s jury’ is Tasmania’s overarching Local Govt. structure, something that has evolved over time and that has accumulated a series of compounding, legacies all defined by now anarchic understandings of civic administration. Furthermore, they represent a social and economic circumstance that are no longer relevant to contemporary community understandings and current realities.

Is Tasmania’s Local Government structure equitable and sustainable in a 21st Century context? 

It is possible that a Citizens’ Jury/Panel may well have a role to play in resolving and relieving the social tensions surrounding the scale and restructuring local governance in Tasmania – specifically to do with the equity, sustainability and accountability of Tasmania’s local governance system.

Taking a look at what the newDEMOCRACY Foundation has to offer, who is involved and what indeed is on offer via their good offices, we find their work impressive. In the cause of better outcomes for Tasmania we can only advocate that the State Government consider engaging with the foundation as an alternative to enlisting incumbent Local Governments in an exercise they have little or no interest in being proactive participants.

On the evidence, it seems that incumbent Councils have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo which is increasingly all too obvious.

The Tasmanian Ratepayers Association can only recommend that  the Minister for Local Government take some time to investigate what ‘participatory citizenship’ via agencies such as the newDEMOCRACY Foundation has to offer. Having done so it would enable Government to findings to bear in regard to the furtherance of discussion and action in regard to Council amalgamation and rationalisation in Tasmania. There are strong arguments to suggest that yesterday was already way too late!

Launceston, Local Govt. Citizenship & Accountability

STORY LINK: http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/futuretense/citzens-juries-giving-power-to-the-people/5779168

Drawing issues like NEW DEMOCRACY initiatives to the attention of a Council one needs to fully expect that the idea will  find its way into the BLACKhole that the ubiquitous Town Hall ‘executive’ maintains with care and dilegence.

Its a pity that accountability gets such a poor level of commitment but there we go, that’s the legacy we are destined to bear until someone sees the prospect of change and goes for it.

It’d be very interesting to see comments and responses to the prospect of change that challenged the comfortable status quo. It seems that ‘the governors’ just do not want to consider lifting their game, ever much when the comfortable defence of the status quo is at hand. But the status quo is just no longer a viable option.

However, if we look at Melbourne’s willingness to include rather than exclude its constituency there seems to be a light at the end of the tunnel. . That is if you think the links here have any veracity at all in contrast to the status quo and that anyone at all will take the time to look at the options and opportunities that are being explored.

Its just the case that there is no real reason to think that governance is beyond the reach of criticism and critique.

Yesterday’s Examiner article “Mayors prepare to share – http://www.examiner.com.au/story/2996803/mayors-prepare-to-share/” gives one that terrible sinking feeling that you get when you harbour any kind of hope at all against the odds. Well done LCC you’ve collectively disappointed yet again!
 
Launceston’s efforts in disenchanting it’s neighbours have born all the fruits of distain and distrust that could have been expected. And, quite reasonably so from the neighbours points of view given Launceston’s ill considered alienating empire building behaviours over time – all championed by its ‘executive wing’.
 
It’ll be Launceston’s citizenry and ratepayers who’ll pay ever so dearly – and it all be so needlessly.  It’s not as if it was not ever in prospect. Launceston’s mayor’s openly declared position of extending Launceston’s boundaries was always flawed and fuelled by hubris. Filled as it was/is with misleading rhetoric and the self-serving pretentiousness of the empire builder, it was ever likely to offend.
 
When will accountability be given any substance and importance in Launceston’s governance?
 
When one offends it is usual to be punished. However, here it’s not the executive who’ll bear the punishment. Rather, they’ll continue to savour the spoils and largess of their office.
 
Getting serious matters of concern in regard to Council’s accountability on the agenda is near to impossible. By-and-large criticism and critique goes unacknowledged and/or uncontested. So one can see the city’s neighbours’ point of view well enough when they try to open a dialogue that is an exchange of views rather than be the recipients of Launcestonian self-serving wisdom.
 
People wish to be participants in their governance and they do not wish to be caught up in polarised in unproductive adversarial (lose-lose) contests.

The evidence in support of this is compelling. SEE http://participate.melbourne.vic.gov.au/projects/10yearplan/
As discovered in Melbourne, trusted outcomes are achieved when leadership allows constituents to participate in their governance. This was achieved via randomly selected citizens deliberating and handing down a determination based on the evidence before them. It works in our courts with juries and only those who do not respect the notion of justice would deny that it does – albeit not always flawlessly.
 
It may or may not be known that Melbourne City Council exposed itself to this kind of scrutiny with apparently positive outcomes within the Melbourne community and internationally  – on the evidence. Some reference links are provided here for the enlightenment of those who not had the opportunity to become acqainted with Melbourne’s initiative. SEE http://www.newdemocracy.com.au/our-work/item/219-city-of-melbourne-people-s-panel
 
Albert Einstein reminded us that “In matters of truth and justice, there is no difference between large and small problems, for issues concerning the treatment of people are all the same.”
 
If you believe that I’m misguided in the views I’m putting to you please rebut them. If they have any relevance please acknowledge that, even if qualified, and let’s get on with delivering better governance not just in Launceston but also our region and beyond. Let’s lead by way of example. That’s what leadership is all about
 

MUSEUM & ART GALLERY ACCOUNTABILITY

“THE Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery has a muddled governance model and has been slow to react to visitor feedback, Auditor-General Mike Blake says.

Mr Blake found that it was unclear who was responsible for TMAG's budget and day-to-day management.

He recommended that the relevant act, which dates back to 1950, be reviewed and updated.

Mr Blake said TMAG also lacked strategic direction.

"There's been discussion in recent years about what the budget for the museum should be, that's not clear," he said.

"If they had a really good, long-term plan, that might inform what the budget should be, so one of the criticisms that we've got is that there isn't a good forward plan."

Mr Blake said TMAG had taken detailed visitor surveys, but said he was not convinced the information was being used for future planning.

Arts Minister Vanessa Goodwin said TMAG's problems were a legacy of the previous government.

"The challenges faced by TMAG are well understood and I can assure members that this government will not shy away from resolving the challenges," she told Parliament.

Dr Goodwin said the government had recently appointed a new director, and TMAG would soon have a new strategic plan.”

–––– • ––––

COMMENT: Well if the TMAG’s governance model is “muddled” one has to wonder what the Minister, and the Auditor General, might think of the QVMAG’s model. Actually if they could describe it that would be good!

If the TMAG’s Act needs an update then quite possibly so too does the polyglot of governance models that every museum and art gallery in the State operates under need an update. Actually in many cases, like in Launceston, there is actually a need to put one in place.

The days when the distinction between ‘governance’ and ‘management’ can be allowed to be blurred to facilitate managerial convenience should have been dealt with long ago. Indeed, the Auditor General’s observation about Strategic Planning is pertinent and very timely. Indeed the need for real and accountable “Strategic Planning” has been there for a rather long time.

Museums have a great deal invested in them – social capital, cultural capital and financial resources.

Publicly owned museums and art galleries should no longer be the playgrounds for dilatants albeit that there is plenty of room for ‘citizen participation.’ – indeed its an imperative. As 21st C institutions accountability to their Communities of Interest & Ownership needs to be both clearly defined and enforceable.

When the minister takes on the task of dealing with the TMAG it would be very good if she looked at all the States publicly owned museums and art galleries given what is at risk and at stake.

Ray Norman

Bullying And Accountability

Ugly workplace bullying is at the cutting edge of public perceptions of tolerance and fairness.

This week, internationally, we’ve seen the stakes set very high as they should be. With Top Gear’s Jeremy Clarkson being sacked for his arrogant and unconscionable behaviour  this, hopefully, points a way forward.

The BBC will be taking a ‘multi million dollar fiscal hit’ but obviously the organisation has judged that it cannot afford the odium of being associated with such untoward behaviours such as Clarkson’s. 

Bullying, once it gets a hold, seeps in everywhere causing fear and dysfunction wherever it goes.

Clearly the BBC sees itself as being accountable to its national and international audiences albeit some are saying ‘look the other way ….this time’.

Interestingly, more than a million people from around the world signed an online petition calling for the BBC to reinstate Clarkson. But the BBC has its standards it seems.

The whole affair is of course a tragedy that’s impacting upon others on the whole Top Gear team. However, do you look the other way in order to actually take care of them?

There is no obvious win-win it seems but a precedent has been set on the international stage.

“Fighting means you could lose. Bullying means you can't. A bully wants to beat somebody; he doesn't want to fight somebody.” Andrew Vachss

The BBC has shown a way. Bullies can loose if you do not look away. However, it just might be a different story in Launceston.

Read more here: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/jeremy-clarkson-james-may-says-top-gear-host-sacking-by-bbc-tragedy-1493557

Now for the transcript from  The Examiner Tuesday 24th March, 2015

“COUNCIL BULLYING CLAIMS SETTLED

Allegations of workplace bullying at the Launceston City Council have been resolved.

In the council meeting yesterday, Alderman Ted Sands questioned Mayor Albert van Zetten on the handling of allegations involving general manager Robert Dobrzynski.

In response to Alderman Sands’ questions, Alderman van Zetten said the matter had been resolved.

In front of his fellow alderman, Alderman Sands asked why the general manager’s conduct and performance review committee, which Alderman van Zetten chaired, decided not to release the report into the allegations.

Alderman van Zetten said the committee followed legal advice on the matter.

Copies of an internal council report about the allegations were widely leaked in the lead-up to the local government election in October.

Alderman Sands asked why a meeting with all aldermen on the matter was not convened and was told by Alderman van Zetten that the procedure of the council was followed.

Mr Dobrzynski, who re-signed as general manager with the council for another five years, did not comment on the matter.”

Jack Bauer