UTAS PUBLIC MEETING ALBERT HALL OCT 1 5:45

Appearing on windscreen around Launceston are these flyers alerting Launceston's ratepayers & tenants to a PUBLIC MEETING called by UTAS as a part of their strategy to win HEARTS & MINDS in regard to the University's takeover of public land at Inveresk. 

The flyer poses 21 Questions to be put to the meeting.

WHERE: ALBERT HALL

WHEN: 5.45 pm  

When the least number of people can attend

Thursday OCT 1

As the flyer says BE THERE  

AND SHARE THIS POSTING 

 CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO ENLARGE

SUBMISSION: Launceston Aquatic Centre Security Fence

TO:  Mr. R. Dobrzynski

General Manager, Launceston City Council, Town Hall, LAUNCESTON      TAS   7250 

24 September 2015

Dear Sir,

Re: DA 0331/2015 Launceston Aquatic Security Fence, 18A High St. Launceston.

We refer to the advertised application for the above. In general terms increasing security may be a valid objective – however there are a number of fundamental matters we wish to raise at the outset:

• Why not leave the boundary fence where it is, improve the solid wall sections where presumably the unauthorized access is occurring, and save ratepayers money by not carving off any more of this heritage place unnecessarily?

• Quality of the submission – for an application purporting to come from inside Council the quality of the submission is a sad indictment of the professionalism of council staff. If the material advertised are the only details lodged by “the applicant” – noting that the major written element is the result of a request for further information – then the application would be invalid.  In any case, given that sections A and C of the application form have not been executed, the application is invalid and should not have been advertised at all.

• Conflict of interest? – We question the integrity of the processing and assessment of this proposal when the "owner" is cited as the General Manager, who is also applicant and to whom the public advertisement directs representors to address their submissions. Those assessing the proposal and representations received are employees of council. The issue of Launceston City Council assessing and determining its own application has been raised in the past. Other councils in Tasmania recognize the obvious bias in this situation, and refer such applications to a neighboring council to determine on their behalf.

• Heritage – 18A High St is a Heritage Place (LCC and THC) and there should be a detailed assessment of the proposal against the relevant Historic Heritage Code and the HCH Act. Again, others should have provided such an assessment, and a suitably qualified and independent Heritage Consultant engaged. There is nothing advertised to say that the Tasmanian Heritage Council has provided an exemption from the granting of a works approval. 

It is profoundly disappointing that Launceston City Council, with all its alleged expertise and management levels finds itself with a custom-made fence that was only very recently built at no doubt considerable expense but that is allegedly not fit for purpose. This despite paying hundreds of thousanads of dollars of ratepayer funds for advisers and consultants. Launceston ratepayers should not bear the cost of incompetence either by management or its consultants.

It is self evident that a fundamental feature of the pool fence would have been to keep people from unauthorised entry. It is not as if this is a recent development that could not have been foreseen.  The phenomenon of unauthorised entry into the pool compound is not new, a midnight swim at Windmill Hill on a balmy summer night was a long-time rite of passage for countless young Launcestonians.

What attempts have been made to claim against the consultants that designed the fence? What action has been taken to ensure that management responsible for this debacle is performance managed to ensure similar things do not happen again?  Somebody has to be accountable and responsible for this.

We question the need for a new fence altogether when a few strands of the ForceField Security Fence Monitoring System installed along the top of the existing fence would most likely do the job at a much lower cost to ratepayers.

We question the need for enhanced security - if in fact there have been unauthorised entries, the application refers to a vague ‘high number’, how many have there been? What has been their pattern?  Is there a specific weak point in the fence where the majority of entries have taken place? Where is the security camera evidence and why has it not been used to prosecute intruders?

If in fact there is a security and safety issue, how does this compare with other safety risks in the municipality that are not being addressed?  Is the additional capital expenditure of $180,000 warranted for the quantum of risk being mitigated and can this cost and risk be reduced by other means, particularly in view of the chronic operating losses that Launceston Aquatic continues to incur?

What is the opportunity cost of this particular ‘safety measure’? Most people would argue that able-bodied persons capable of breaching the existing fence are the least likely to drown or be injured at the pool. As stated above, countless people have gained unauthorised access and used the former Windmill Hill pool in the past without any drownings taking place.  Similarly, many people use the First Basin pool at all hours, and for most part of the year, it has no fence around it at all, and when a fence is erected, it does not have the ultra-high security design nor electrification features proposed for this fence at Launceston Aquatic.

It is rather difficult to ascertain from the application drawing, the extent of the proposed new fence. The section towards the west extending past the Memorial Hall appears to be unchanged, and the solid wall section to the east of the outdoor pool and adjoining the changerooms, likewise appears unchanged. There is no drawing or illustration showing what the proposed fence will look like in its actual setting. The mesh panels are rectilinear and will need to have a formed, stepped base wall to counteract the sloping site, with the top being similarly stepped and hence out of character with the undulating ground and the area generally. It is of concern to note from the material presented by the applicant from the manufacturer, that this fencing system is designed for use in gaols and other like high-security compounds. It will be inconceivable that this attractive cultural heritage parkland will be given the unsavoury appearance of an encircling gaol fence. The area immediately abuts the culturally sensitive War Memorial Avenue leading to the War Memorial Hall. Images of Changi Gaol and European Concentration Camps lining this approach, are exceedingly insensitive and inappropriate.

The expansion of the fenced in area constitutes a substantial proportion of the best and most accessible parkland at Windmill Hill Park. It results in more of that space being taken away from anyone other than those paying admission fees to the Aquatic Centre. How will the additional alienation of public open space enhance Aquatic Centre revenue and by how much?  The additional open space to be added to Launceston Aquatic will need to patrolled and controlled and maintained, thus placing more demands on pool staff or more likely require more staff and costs to be borne by the ratepayers.

The application fails to demonstrate the need to create an enlarged area for facility patrons, for a large part of the year the outdoor facility is hardly used. There is no evidence of overcrowding at the facility.  The land that is regularly used by the community today will be alienated from public to be used for a limited number of days of peak pool attendance.

In 2007, Launceston City Council undertook the Launceston City Council Open Space Strategy 2007,

http://www.launceston.tas.gov.au/upfiles/lcc/cont/_council/community_engagement/strategies_plans_and_reports/lcc_open_space_strategy_10thJuly_2007.pdf

The strategy establishes that East Launceston already had the least area of parkland set aside, compared to all other suburbs. The Plan was to be reviewed each 5 years (a review was due in 2012), however in East Launceston there does not appear to have been any increase in the provision of open space since 2007, and to the contrary, this proposal significantly reduces what is some of the most flattish and useable parkland in Windmill Hill Park and the East Launceston suburb generally.

In the LCC Open Space Strategy 2007, Windmill Hill Park was given a score of 1/10, the highest and most valuable of all area assessments within the municipality, whereas the area that was already sectioned off into the Launceston Swimming Centre was scored at only 3/10. Ironically at an inflated figure of 39,489m”, Windmill Hill Park included the not inconsiderable park area that was technically included in the High Street road reserve, which Council ought not need to be reminded had been unceremoniously taken and paved over for the Aquatic Centre carpark! The 39,489m” of Windmill Hill Park is officially categorised by Council as a Conservation Heritage Area Park, whereas the 8,297m” area already fenced off for Launceston Aquatic is officially categorised to the lower order of Regional Sport.

Whilst, as already stated above, it is virtually impossible to read or even understand how much area of Windmill Hill Park is proposed to be fenced off by this proposal from the unreadable drawing forming the basis of this application, our professionally-calculated assessment is of the order of 1,000 m” of prime cultural heritage parkland.

The following table illustrates the deficiency suffered by the East Launceston suburb prior to this application to reduce the present parkland/open space.

Data from Launceston open Space Strategy Study
	population	Park area  m2	m2/head pop
Alanvale / Newnham	5,399	220,951	41
East Launceston	2,239	64,754	29
Invermay / Inveresk	2,996	840,456	281
Kings Meadows	3,720	695,679	187
Launceston / Elphin	3,547	410,365	116
Mayfield	1,434	56,080	39
Mowbray	3,245	249,957	77
Newstead	4,366	393,306	90
Norwood	3,784	131,005	35
Punchbowl	411	256,204	623
Ravenswood	4,065	550,407	135
Rocherlea	1,143	229,141	200
South Launceston	3,739	183,174	49
St Leonard's	1,613	232,867	144
Summerhill	2,904	589,203	203
Trevallyn	4,330	1,405,734	325
Waverley	1,570	405,263	258
West Launceston	3,984	964,566	242
Youngtown	2,938	387,467	132

In summary, it is our submission that this proposal should be refused, that council's staff be directed to give consideration to making a fresh application that will be limited to proposing some relatively minor changes to raise the height of the present panels of fencing, and in doing so make considerable cost savings for ratepayers, not withstanding that the incursion into Windmill Hill Park will be avoided.

Yours faithfully,

Lionel Morrell

President

Tasmanian Ratepayers Association Inc.

Upset artist sees artworks withdrawn

SOURCE: http://www.examiner.com.au/story/3329653/upset-sees-artworks-withdrawn/?cs=95

THREE ceramic works have been withdrawn at the artist's request from the Growth Change Influence: the University of Tasmania 125-year anniversary exhibition, which is on show at Launceston's Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery, Royal Park. 

The works by Michael Murrell were removed from display on Monday. 

Murrell's request was the result of frustration and disappointment at having not received an invitation to attend the official opening of the exhibition on August 1. 

Murrell personally approached Launceston mayor Albert van Zetten about what from his viewpoint was a major oversight given the long connection he had had with each of the institutions involved. 

He has also been in communication with QVMAG director Richard Mulvaney and the university's gallery curator Malcom Bywaters. 

Each of these people have conveyed by letter that it was "an honest mistake" that Murrell's name did not appear on the guest list. 

Murrell's frustration comes from what he maintains is a general shifting of blame. 

 "Someone needs to take responsibility for this, instead of shifting the blame, because there's at least four invitation lists connected to this exhibition that should have and could have included me," he said. 

Mr Mulvaney said the request to remove Murrell's work had been regrettable. 

"It is always regrettable when works are withdrawn from an exhibition."  

"This exhibition covers an important history of art in Tasmania that spans 125 years, that makes it particularly significant, and while it cannot cover everyone who has contributed, those who have works on show were chosen for pertinent reasons." 

Previously Mr Murrell has donated works, his own as well as pieces by other significant Tasmanian artists including Bea Maddock and Les Blakeborough, to the permanent collection of the QVMAG.

Growth Change Influence continues at the QVMAG until November. Entry is free.

FROM FACEbook ...  Its time that PUBLIC institutions got their act together! It is no longer the case that 'artists' have to take what's dealt out to them by them. Like, having their work used without reference to their MORAL RIGHTS, like expecting them to "donate" their work, skills and knowledge on the strength that "it good for their reputation". Accountability is very often a foreign concept!

Social Media will increasingly hold these institutions to ACCOUNT and for many its not before time.

ARTISTS CAN STRIKE BACK
SEE FACEbook

HOBART'S GM OUTAGED

FROM FACEBOOK

HEATH SEEKS COMPENSATION OVER ALDERMANIC & STAFF DINNER

Hobart City Council General Manager Nick Heath is reportedly furious over suggestion that the lavish fortnightly banquet enjoyed by Aldermen and senior staff should be cut back.

An inside source reports that Heath learned of the proposal at last weeks dinner when it was first put forward by Alderman Peter Sexton.

“He was furious, he nearly choked on his crayfish,” said one onlooker “He started throwing salmon and spilling champagne, he had food all over his chin, people were slipping over on caviar. It was like watching Jabba the Hutt turn into the Hulk or something”.

In a statement, Heath’s lawyer has confirmed he will be seeking a 20% increase to his $350,000 salary as compensation. “A man has to eat” said his lawyer, “It’s only fair that they get to dine in a style they are accustomed to, I mean all these cutbacks and transparency, I am telling you my client won’t stand for it. Christ, next they will have to travel economy and not be allowed to import office furniture. Anyway doesn’t everyone get free catered lunches at work? Why should they be treated differently?”

The proposal may still not get through as with all council tenders, staffing, grants and support for projects, the final decision is put before Heath for his personal consideration.

LCC & Community Standards

Dear Mayor and Aldermen,

Under the circumstances I imagine that Council’s instincts – management’s in particular – will be to shut down any correspondence to do with the publicised sacking of a council employee of 62 years standing. Likewise I expect that you’ll be predisposed to tell me:
 

1. That its inappropriate to discuss individual operational matters;
2. That safety directives and conventions must be complied with by all employees irrespective of their status;
3. That the sacking of an employee only follows a process of performance reviews relative to KPIs, etc;  
4. That such matters are the province of ‘the unions’ and ‘management’ and thus not an Aldermanic matter;
5. That the employee of 62 years standing  was dismissed because of safety breaches; and of course
6. That LCC is an employer regarded as one upholding the highest stands.
   

If you are to tell me these things the evidence upon which you might make such assertions falls short of “community expectations”, that is the community that elects and employs you to represent it, and to whom you are accountable.

Moreover council’s action, in regard to potential psychological stress and trauma – plus the consequences of these issues –  in this case, as likely as not, could well be found to be unsafe, thus exposing you as aldermen; council employees; and ratepayers alike; to a set of predictable and unacceptable risks.

I look forward to your response to the issues I raise here with considerable interest and specifically so in respect to LCC’s Organisational Values and community standards, not to mention Sections 62 & 65 of the Local Govt. Act.

Regards,

Ray Norman

Ray Norman
<zingHOUSEunlimited>
The lifestyle design enterprise and research network

PH: 03-6334 2176
EMAIL 1: raynorman@eftel.net.au
EMAIL 2: ray@7250.net
40 Delamere Crescent Trevallyn TAS. 7250
WEBsite: http://www.raynorman7250.blogspot.com

CLICK HERE: http://www.launceston.tas.gov.au/lcc/index.php?c=69

“A body of men holding themselves accountable to nobody ought not to be trusted by anybody.” — Thomas Paine

Sacked after 62 years By JAMES BRADY Aug. 10, 2015, 11:19 p.m.
http://www.examiner.com.au/story/3270626/sacked-after-62-years/

THE Launceston City Council has defended its position in sacking an employee with 62 years of service amid heat from the Australian Services Union.

The union claims that the decision to fire rural roads co-ordinator David Flynn for breaching safety protocols was made in a bid to avoid paying a full redundancy.

ASU Victoria-Tasmania organiser Kath Ryman said the union was calling on the council to reinstate Mr Flynn before undertaking a ‘‘fair investigation into safety procedures at council’’.

‘‘The problem is that council have failed to genuinely investigate and consider evidence that was provided by the ASU to show that the same practices that constituted David’s alleged safety breaches are commonly used practices across the organisation,’’ Ms Ryman said.

 ‘‘Despite some denial from council, we believe that a review of the rural roads crew recommended that David’s position as rural roads co-ordinator position be made redundant.’’

Launceston general manager Robert Dobryznski said he was unable to provide details of Mr Flynn’s termination, but that the council held a legal responsibility to ensure safe work practices.

‘‘The council also has a legal obligation to take decisive action – however difficult it may be in the circumstances – to address repeated instances of unsafe work practices, particularly when numerous attempts have been made to provide support and training,’’ Mr Dobryznski said.

‘‘While dismissal is extremely disappointing and a last resort, the potential for injury or loss of life of employees makes it imperative that safety standards are enforced.

‘‘In cases where we are forced to take this course of action, we follow a robust and procedurally fair process and the employee is provided with reasons behind the decision that has led to termination.’’

Ms Ryman said the decision was made on the back of a restructure of the council’s infrastructure services directorate, and that four redundancies were offered to employees in the Parks Services area.

‘‘These workers were given the option to apply for new, very similar positions, but the application process for these new positions required an unnecessary medical assessment to be undertaken,’’ she said.

‘‘Some of these workers had previous workplace injuries sustained during their years of dedicated service to council, so they reluctantly chose to take the redundancy, fearing council would discriminate and use the results of the medical assessment against them.’’

.

LETTER: Local Govt. & Conscripted Investments

If Launceston’s entrepreneurs were playing on the proverbial ‘level playing field’ they would be able to conscript investment the same was as Launceston Council does.

However, to attract investors Launceston’s entrepreneurs need to offer the promise of a dividend or benefit.

On the other hand, Launceston City Council simply conscripts its required funding from its constituency on the promise of a punitive outcome if ratepayers fail to pay.

In the case of The Aquatic Centre expanding its operation on the strength of a ‘conscripted investment’ in order to grow the enterprise, from any vantage point, the playing field looks pretty dammed bumpy!

If LCC were to be crowdfunding this new uncompetitive and inequitable expansion at the Aquatic Centre there would need to be and rewards on offer to volunteer investors.

Currently however, all the dividends seem to go LCC management’s way in the form of salaries and benefits, and that’s outrageous.

It is time for some accountability.

Given LCC’s demonstrated and ongoing inclination to grow its cost centres for the benefit of management, it’s past the time for Minister Gutwein to call in the administrators to relieve ratepayers of their inequitable burden.
 
Ray Norman
Trevallyn

|||| END ||||

“A body of men holding themselves accountable to nobody ought not to be trusted by anybody.” — Thomas Paine

GYM owners are expecting to suffer more losses following a plan by the Launceston City Council to open an outdoor gym at the Launceston Aquatic Centre.

The aquatic centre gym, LAfit, opened its doors in January 2014, much to the anger of Northern gym owners who feared unfair competition because of the ability of council to undercut them with ratepayers subsidising the real cost of the facility.

The $26.3 million aquatic centre opened in 2009 but continues to post an annual deficit of more than $1.5 million.

Launceston Aquatic and Leisure Centre manager Elise Frost said on Tuesday that public consultation on the $35,000 to be spent on the outdoor training area was sought as part of the council budget in April.
 
The council is set to spend a total of $275,000 on infrastructure at the centre this financial year.

KFM Fitness owner Brian Finch said a number of gyms had closed or were suffering since LAfit opened and the new outdoor area would only put further stress on their businesses.
‘‘It’s just getting out of hand and it’s only going to get worse,’’ Mr Finch said.

EFM Health Clubs franchisee and owner Mark Connelley said as a ratepayer, he was against the council establishing another outdoor gym area when it was continuing to fail to address the debt it already had at the facility.

Other gym operators spoken to raised the same concerns and questioned why the costings of the gym – which was opened to help cover the rising debt of the aquatic centre – have never been made public.

Ms Frost said the existing soft fall area outside the gym would be a training area and they plan to install some equipment in September.

‘‘Launceston Aquatic was always designed to host a gym and dry programs and the majority of council-owned aquatic centres across Australia have implemented these to provide revenue streams; this is one of the reasons aldermen voted to introduce health and fitness facilities at the centre at the council meeting on March 25, 2013,’’ Ms Frost said.

‘‘Our aim is to reduce operating deficits at the facility and the way similar facilities do this around the country is through their dry programs.’’

She said the works were important to respond to market trends.

LETTER: Local Govt. Reform

Minister Gutwein finally coming out and proactively declaring the importance of local government reform is both welcomed and overdue.

Clearly the efficiencies that the minister alludes to are there and furthermore, a  review of the Local Government Act is well and truly overdue.

Let us just get on with a review that will give us a 21st Century Local Government Act that fits the Tasmanian circumstance.

However, why wait?

We all know very well that we have too many councils costing too much with too many administrator achieving far too little.

The flagged “four regional council model” only has the conflicted interests of incumbent councilors, aldermen and bureaucrats to resist it.

The notion that such conflicted self interests should stand in the way of more effective, more equitable and more accountable local governance is unjustified.

Finding the way forward seems to be the inhibitor but bold and decisive action is called for.

In a matter of months four independent commissioners could be appointed and installed to oversea the transition from unsustainability to a new model devised in collaboration with the communities to be served by it.

What we need to do is begin to imagine the more effective service delivery and start work on it immediately.

Let the conversation begin immediately!

Ray Norman
Trevallyn

“A body of men holding themselves accountable to nobody ought not to be trusted by anybody.” — Thomas Paine

Local Government Reform

To: Peter Gutwein – Minister for Local Government: peter.gutwein@dpac.tas.gov.au;

I want to encourage you to keep advancing the idea of local government reform in Tasmania. Local government acts as a 'cut out' between the population and State government as well as a diverter of public monies.

Basically the combined direct and indirect costs of keeping 29 administrations going around the State is out of all proportion to any benefits.

Overall, Tasmania has too much money circulating in often unproductive government, and not enough circulating in the private sector. In some areas (e.g. Launceston) some 25% of Council's budget is for loss making entertainment and recreation activities (swimming pools, gym, football) all of which could be handled by the private sector.

Inexcusable is the fact that local governments can increase rates to cover their own losses and inefficiencies, which also forces private sector groups to fund competition from their local Council.

For a population the size of Tasmania between 1 and 3 groups dedicated to provide the essential services provided by Councils would suffice.

The mistake made by previous administrations was to allow Council's to specify what they do when it is ratepayers who must pay for Council excesses.

Monies collected by Councils are monies that could otherwise support key State initiatives, as well as investing and stimulating the private sector.

TASMANIAN councils are working on a basis of four regional models to begin negotiations around amalgamation and resource sharing.

The regions in discussion would be made up of the North, North-West, Greater Hobart or Greater South-Eastern councils and include 23 of the state’s 29 councils.

Regional model discussions were announced by Local Government Minister Peter Gutwein at the Local Government Association of Tasmania annual meeting in Launceston on Wednesday, and follow an independent survey that found 55 per cent of respondents believed reform was ‘‘very important’’.

‘‘What this should be able to do for those councils involved is to improve the benefits and services to ratepayers by delivering them at a lower cost,’’ Mr Gutwein said.

‘‘I think there are a range of efficiencies that can be achieved as a result of this.’’

The Northern region, which met for the first time on Tuesday and is made up of Launceston, Meander Valley, Northern Midlands, West Tamar, George Town, Dorset, Break O’Day and Flinders councils, will look at resource sharing and continue discussions from there.

The North-West region of Circular Head, King Island, Waratah-Wynyard, Burnie, Central Coast, Kentish, Latrobe and West Coast councils will do the same.

Yet, Devonport City Council wants to also consider amalgamations.

In the South, there is discussion around amalgamations that would see a Greater Hobart council made up of Hobart, Kingborough, Clarence and possibly Glenorchy or a Greater South-Eastern council with Sorell, Clarence, Tasman and Glamorgan-Spring Bay.

Mr Gutwein also announced a review of the Local Government Act, which would focus on roles and responsibilities of elected and non-elected staff, administration and financial management.

FW: examiner letter

Sirs,

Hobart shows the way when it comes to lighting up people’s imagination when they build great fires.

If you want to light a fire in the middle of winter, Hobart Council is inclined to say YES!

Launceston however, well you’ll probably need seven kinds of permits from disinclined bureaucrats and then it’ll be NO anyway.

Hobart’s had a couple of good fires recently and the last was spectacular at the Festival Of The Voices.

Apparently, 5,000 people turned out!

Launcestonians need to know why the naysayers get their way all the time and where the dangers are actually perceived to be.

We have the SES to militate against all kinds of threats. Why not a CFB (Cultural Facilitation Brigade) with a licence to say YES?

We could even have a multifaceted ‘Festival of Fires’ but someone needs to be able to say “YES YOU CAN!”

Who was it in the USA who said something like that?

Ray Norman
Trevallyn

|||| END ||||


 GO2 ... http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-10/thousands-huddle-around-bonfire-for-hobarts-festival/6611650

Call to reshape Launceston municipality

Councillor Woinarski’s proposal for Launceston has a great deal of merit and it should to be taken much more seriously than it has been.

Intriguingly, Cr Woinarski is thinking outside the box just as LGAT’s ex-CEO, Allan Garcia, has in his call for “an overhaul of [the Local Government] sector.”

A reimagining of Launceston as a regional cum urban centre is much needed given that current planning and administration is unquestionably driven by an unsustainable management model and antiquated thinking.

Cr Woinarski’s proposal actually needs to be pushed much further but he does offer a foundation upon which to build a sustaining 21st Century regional and urban entity unfettered from archaic operational modelling.

Tasmania’s Local Government Act is unsophisticated, outdated and dysfunctional, designed as it is for a different economy, another time and a rapidly disappearing past.

Under the ‘Woinarski model’ adjoining administrations might well come together in a new form of cooperative and productive governance – 21st Century governance.

The current ‘Launceston model’ mitigates against any such a thing.

With the LGAT ‘think in’ about to happen, local government functionaries could do well to look up from their navels and look ahead for a more sustaining future.

Ray Norman
Trevallyn

|||||| END ||||||

Call to reshape Launceston municipality
By ROSITA GALLASCH  July 7, 2015, 11:03 p.m.

West Tamar Councillor Tim Woinarski proposes reducing Launceston Council to a central district with the surrounding areas transferring to other Northern councils.

The Launceston municipality could be reduced in size to a core central district, similar to the City of London, if people agree with a proposal put forward by West Tamar Councillor Tim Woinarski.

As part of ongoing amalgamation talks, Cr Woinarski's proposal would see the Launceston municipality reduced to an area bordered by the North Esk to the north, Boland, Dowling and High streets to the east, Howick Street in the south and Bathurst Street in the west.

The rest of the Launceston municipality would be divided in four and taken on by George Town, Northern Midlands, Meander Valley and West Tamar councils.

The existing Launceston council could be abolished and the new one made up of two councillors from each of the four surrounding councils, with possibly the inclusion of a representative from the University of Tasmania, Cityprom and the Launceston Chamber of Commerce.

Cr Woinarski said he based his idea on the City of London model, which he believed was doing very well.

"All we hear about the amalgamation debate is that we need to be bigger and redraw the lines," he said. "I'm sick and tired of hearing this - I have not heard a legitimate, well-thought-out, financially costed, beneficial argument for amalgamation in the North.

"I'm not saying 29 councils is a perfect number - and if bigger is better, then Launceston should be the best-performing council, but according to the Auditor-General's report, this is not the case."

He said the benefits would be that the four surrounding councils would pick up more ratepayers and they would also take on an equal quarter share of the funding and decision-making of facilities such as Aurora Stadium, the Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery and Launceston Aquatic Centre.

Launceston council's debt would be divided between the five councils.

Launceston mayor Albert van Zetten said it sounded a "tad fanciful" and questioned if it was just someone trying to protect their own position, as the proposal also lacked research rigour to substantiate it.

"We would consider that the first step would be to follow the request from the [Local Government] Minister and enter discussions on how we as councils can provide more cost-effective services to the community without jumping immediately to models that seek to protect vested interests," he said.

A spokesman for Local Government Minister Peter Gutwein said Mr Gutwein had written to councils seeking confirmation of all the proposals put to them, and any "final decision will be up to local

councils and their ratepayers".

West Tamar mayor Christina Holmdahl said the views were purely those of Cr Woinarski.

Both Meander Valley mayor Craig Perkins and Northern Midlands mayor David Downie raised concerns about the idea.

END

“A body of men holding themselves accountable to nobody ought not to be trusted by anybody.” — Thomas Paine


CLICK HERE: http://www.launceston.tas.gov.au/lcc/index.php?c=69

QVMAG POLICIES UNDER REVIEW

LCC SP&PC DRAFT QVMAG POLICIES LINK
http://www.launceston.tas.gov.au/upfiles/lcc/cont/_council/council/council_meetings/sppc/15_june_2015/strategic_planning_and_policy_committe_agenda_15_june_2015.pdf

Council general managers on big bucks with salary packages of up to $340,000

EDITOR’S NOTE

There is something to be said about the complexity of GMs’ jobs. That is that over time GM’s have been building administration empires with almost the sole purpose in mind being to build upon their salary packages. With a population base static at about 500,000 the only way to grow the pie is to grow the job and do it quietly.

It is unlikely that Tasmanians will see the administrative wing of their local governments arguing for amalgamations, that is seriously arguing for amalgamations. General Mangagers in particular have too much at stake since there are too many of them doing what fewer, many fewer, could do much better.

There would be a PhD Thesis in demonstrating that this theory had substance and if the State Government was serious about curtailing the cost of Local Government it would fund such a PhD or a Post Doctoral Fellowship.

All this has been happening under successive State Governments of all political complexions and evolving Council memberships. Thewre is nothing like self belief to add weight to an argument! There may well be something insidious to be discovered through independent academic research that is unlikely to see the light of day through government initiated research.

•

NOTE: perhaps this should read “WHAT COUNCIL GENERAL MANAGERS ARE PAID”

MATT SMITH STATE POLITICAL EDITOR
MERCURY
JUNE 07, 2015?12:00AM

GO TO SOURCE: http://www.themercury.com.au/news/politics/council-general-managers-on-big-bucks-with-salary-packages-of-up-to-340000/comments-fnpp9w4j-1227386470471

Tasmanian local council general managers are earning as much or more than the Premier and Treasurer. GENERAL managers of Tasmania’s largest councils are on salaries rivalling the Premier and Treasurer.

A?Sunday Tasmanian?analysis of Tasmania’s largest councils, and their highest-paid staff, shows that general managers are on salaries of up to $340,000 a year.
Hobart City Council general manager Nick Heath has a package (which includes a fully maintained vehicle) that is worth between $320,000 and $339,999 a year – making him the highest-paid council boss in the state.

Launceston City Council general manager Robert Dobrzynski ($290,000 to $310,000) and Clarence City Council general manager Andrew Paul ($240,000 to $260,000) round out the top three.
Glenorchy City Council’s Peter Brooks has a package worth between $200,000 and $250,000.

In comparison Tasmanian Premier Will Hodgman has a base salary with electorate loadings worth about $290,000 a year and the Treasurer Peter Gutwein $242,000.
Prime Minister Tony Abbott is on a salary of about $507,000.

Clarence City Council general manager Andrew Paul is on a package of $240,000 to $260,000.

HCC general manager Nick Heath earns between $320,000 and $339,999 a year.

Council CEO salaries have come under scrutiny in Victoria where council bosses are earning up to $460,000 at the Melbourne City Council. The new Daniel Andrews-led Victorian Government has called for reform of executive salaries.

Glenorchy City Council general manager Peter Brooks, whose salary package is worth $200,000 to $250,000.

Tasmanian Local Government Minister Peter Gutwein told the?Sunday Tasmanian?most, if not all, general manager salary packages are individual common law contracts negotiated between the general manager and the relevant council.

“There is no State Government involvement – it is clearly a matter for local government to decide remuneration packages for their GM.”

University of Tasmania corporate governance expert Tom Baxter said it could be time to look at the salaries of general managers.
“Tasmania has seen significant reform of industrial relations across Tasmanian councils in recent years,” Mr Baxter said.
“Council employees (except for general managers) are now covered by the Local Government Industry Award, since January 1, 2014.
“On September 15, 2014, a Full Bench of the Fair Work Commission (FWC) terminated the Municipal Managers (Tasmania) Award 2003 so it would be timely to review Tasmanian councils’ general manager remuneration, having regard to factors such as their responsibilities, council size, complexity, and pay for equivalent roles elsewhere.
“Such a review could also consider arguments for and against reforms such as salary caps, being proposed by Victoria’s Premier.”

Council GM salaries defended
BLAIR RICHARDS STATE POLITICAL REPORTER
MERCURY
JUNE 09, 2015?12:00AM
GO TO SOURCE: http://www.themercury.com.au/council-gm-salaries-defended/story-fnj3twbb-1227388852504>

THE acting head of Tasmania’s peak body for local government says councils have become complex organisations — a fact reflected in the salaries of general managers.

Analysis conducted by the Sunday Tasmanian as part of the Your Right to Know campaign showed general managers of the largest councils were on salaries rivalling that of the Premier.
Local Government Association of Tasmania acting chief executive Katrena Stephenson said the role could be compared with the head of a government department.
“Councils are far more complex beasts than they were in terms of the range of services they provide and the assets they own. They are big business,” Dr Stephenson said.
“They provide not only roads and rubbish [services], but social services, tourism and eco­nomic development and they have a significantly increased statutory role for State and Federal governments.

“In terms of the type of role it’s probably equivalent to a secretary of an agency and if you look at those salaries I’m sure they would be on par.”
She said councils were oper­ating in a competitive market when it came to ­attracting the right general manager.
“They have to think about how they can attract the right people to the job, they have to be competitive to get the right skills mix,” she said.
The Sunday Tasmanian’s analysis showed the state’s top earning council boss is Hobart City Council general manager Nick Heath, whose salary package, including vehicle, is worth between $320,000 and $339,999.
Launceston City Council general manager Robert Dobrzynski earns between $290,000 and $310,000 and Clarence City Council general manager Andrew Paul earns $240,000 to $260,000.
Glenorchy’s Peter Brooks is paid a package worth $200,000 to $250,000. This compares with the Premier’s base salary of $290,000.

Battle continues over Council neglect to mow nature strip - MORE BROKEN PROMISES

CLICK HERE TO READ THIS STORY

Battle continues over Council neglect to mow nature strip: More Broken Promises

The man that mowed Miss Fergusson's nature strip

Miss Barbara Fergusson continues to battle with LCC over the neglect of the nature strip outside her house in Hillary Street.

To re-cap, In December 2014, on the day of Launceston’s Saturday Xmas Parade Mayor van Zettan and his daughter personally cut the grass that had been seriously neglected for months, causing Australia Post to threaten to refuse to deliver Miss Fergusson’s mail (see previous blog).

Then, somewhat prematurely as regrowth was minimal, a council workcrew cut it again during the afternoon of January 21.

However, in spite of continuing complaints by Miss Fergusson, it has not been cut since (4 months of neglect).

On Thursday 14^th May, LCC Director Harry Galea promised Miss Fergusson during her regular telephone call of complaint, that the grass would be cut the following week.......but Miss Fergusson is still waiting and the grass keeps growing.

Perhaps a practical solution to this ongoing wrangling (there was a time Miss Fergusson says that LCC cut the grass 6 times/year) is for LCC to pave over the grassed area. In the absence of an operating ‘work for the dole’ employment scheme, Council’s shrinking resources are becoming less able to undertake basic maintenance responsibilities.......unless the ratepayer happens to live in a more upmarket area of the city, where n’ere a blade, leaf or acorn seems to get seriously out of place.

Miss Fergusson is not alone with her concerns, and particularly in steeper areas where the topography is very awkward, grass and noxious weeds reign supreme.

Please let this be the last posting on this topic.

Lionel Morrell

President

Tasmanian Ratepayers Association Inc.

LETTER TO LCC ALDERMEN AND GENERAL MANAGER: QVMAG COLLECTION SECURITY

Mayor, General Manager and Council,

I believe that it is reasonable to assume that the current QVMAG Collection Policy that the institution is operating with has not been presented to, nor has it been endorsed by Council – the  institution’s governing body and its policy determiner. 

I’m also given to understand this unendorsed ‘policy’ deliberately consolidates within it the institution’s deaccession policy – that is the policy relevant to the disposal and dispersal of redundant, damaged and unsafe items in the QVMAG's collections.

I am also led to believe that the draft policy is in fact the current and functional operational guidelines despite the fact that the policy has neither been presented to nor approved by council. 

If this is not the case, can you inform me what in fact is the status of the QVMAG’s collection Policy?

Furthermore, can you advise me of what the current operational guidelines are in fact and what their status may be?

The draft policy provided to me by the QVMAG's Director (click here to see a copy) sets out that:

• “If [‘deaccession’ is] approved by the Director and the object has a value greater than $1000 the proposal is referred to Council for their consideration.
• If [‘deaccession’ is] approved by the Director and the object has a value of less than or equal to $1000 the Curator /Collection Manager arranges for the disposal of the item.
• If Council approves of the deaccession of an item with a value more than $1000, the Curator/Collection Manager arranges for the disposal of the object. “

The first issue that posses a problem with the ‘presumed draft policy’ is the notion that the ‘value’ of a cultural object/artefact or a scientific specimen can be realistically defined in dollar terms.

If 'value' is to be defined by some other criteria, given the General Manager's obligations under SECTION 65 of the Local Govt. Act, what independent expert advice does the GM, or will he, rely upon in determining ‘the vvalue’ and thus the appropriateness of deaccession when advising council – the institution’s Trustees?

Given the QVMAG Director’s often stated position that, paraphrased, ‘the QVMAG’s collections need to be rationalised’, how does the GM anticipate that this process will/can take place under current operational arrangements? Indeed, does Council, as the QVMAG's Trustees, endorse this aspiration?

Moreover, can the GM advise, or has the GM advised, council of the need to deaccession any material from the QVMAG’s collections since Jan 2014 and up until the present?

If so, what material, in what timeframe, for what reasons and by what process?

Presuming that the only material that would be a candidate for formal deaccession is that material that has been formally accessioned into the QVMAG’s collections, has any cultural material, or material of scientific interest, held informally by the QVMAG, been ‘disposed of’ since January 2014? 

If so, what material, in what timeframe, for what reasons and by what process?

In regard to the cultural and scientific material that is held by the QVMAG:

• Has an audit of this material been undertaken?
• Has an evaluation been undertaken relative to its cultural, scientific value and its consequent  and appropriate dollar value?
• If so, who has undertaken the evaluation, in what context and when?
• Has a strategy been put in place relevant to this material’s retention or disposal?
• If so, what time frame is anticipated as being either appropriate or achievable in regard to deaccessioning or disposing of cultural and scientific material held by the QVMAG?

In the context of rationalising the QVMAG's overall operation towards achieving sustainability, or a greater level of sustainability, the questions posed above are of considerable interest to ratepayers and the QVMAG’s Community of Ownership and Interest. This is especially so in the context of the MOU signed with the university and the flagged consolidation of the QVMAG onto one site.

Furthermore, by extension, these questions ultimately run to the security of the QVMAG collections currently valued at something in excess of $240 million and funded by, and held in trust on behalf of ratepayers, taxpayers, donors and sponsors.

As an independent Launceston ratepayer, and as a cultural researcher, I look forward to Council's, and the GM's, responses to the questions posed above.

Regards,

Ray Norman

zingHOUSEunlimited

The lifestyle design enterprise and research network

 Trevallyn TAS. 7250

End Message