TOWN HALL VANDALISM: Cultural and Fiscal

The scene being played out in Launceston's Civic Square right next to Town Hall could well be a comedy if it were not for the seriousness of the unfolding truths currently being revealed.

When put on the spot, Alderman Finlay revealed that there were indeed costs to be born by ratepayers consequent to the serial  bureaucratic bungling that resulted in the components of Stephen Walker's 1992 'TASMANIAN TABLEAU' being scattered about as if this civic sculpture was a bunch of toys. It was a gift to the city to commemorate THE EXAMINER's Sesquicentennial.

It is no trivial matter to toy with the moral rights of artists and authors under Australia  Copyright law. All too often when an artist/author has died bureaucrats get to think that nobody will be looking and that perhaps nobody cares. When they do care, and the ineptitude of the  bureaucratic insensitivity is on display, and is called out, the backroom whispering and denials eventual gets to be loud enough to hear, 

Alderman Finlay finally fessed up to there being a cost to sorting out the bungle albeit she did not challenge the advice provided to Council when council was asked if an  estimate of the costs involved in, and related to, addressing the issue of the artist’s/author’s moral rights being violated. The response on the record is that "there are no additional costs to the Civic Square project associated with these sculptures." This could never have been anything like the truth but without a whimper of any kind the alderpeople one and all let the flawed advice go without comment.  That's accountability in action for you.

Presumably, given that SECTION 65 requires the General Manager guarantee advice offered in Council's agendas that was good enough for all the alderpeople despite such advice defying every kind of logic. Alderman Finlay finally let the cat out of the bag when she advised that "that as the Civic Square redevelopment project is under budget any costs associated with the sculpture being reinstated as intended can be absorbed within the current budget". Alderman Finlay, or indeed any other alderperson or officer has provided any evidence for the project being "under budget" and in any event it is of no consequence as clearly there are "additional costs" albeit unspecified and confidential.

-->

Clearly, Alderman Finlay's advice demonstrates that there are indeed additional unbudgeted costs associated with honouring the artist’s/author’s moral rights. These are the very rights that have been bureaucratically dismissed apparently and sidestepped as a consequence of Council’s seemingly dysfunctional planning processes. Moreover, this bureaucratic advice is contrary to the advice provided on the record in the  COUNCIL AGENDA Monday 4 June 2018  

After that, it appears to be the case that collectively Launceston's alderpeople's financial competence is open to be questioned given their implied apparent uncritical acceptance of operational budgets in the first instance and subsequently given their apparent predisposition to accept, and uncritically, self-serving managerial advice. 

When advice turns out to be flawed and less than “expert” in accord with SECTION 65 of the Local Govt. Act 1993 the city's alderpeople, ratepayers' representatives in a fiscal context, accountability falls to the alderpeople and there can be no ducking of the issue.

It is of some concern that it appears that in this and possibly other cases too, that the alderpeople do not recognise that there are indeed significant costs flowing to ratepayers as a consequence of ta bureaucratic blunder. Moreover,  a blunder that must result in the curtailment of expenditure elsewhere unless one subscribes to 'cargo cult delusions'. It appears as if the alderpeople collectively do not acknowledge that Council’s primary income source is the city’s ratepayers and in this instance at least, they are careless of that fact. In fact a regular meeting attender has reported that the term "ratepayer" is rarely if ever heard uttered around the 'Council table'.

Indeed, it seems that ratepayers can expect the alderpeople, by default, to represent Council's officers rather than them, the city's ratepayers. This discounts somewhat all those assertions to do with caring about and understanding your constituency’s aspirations and needs talked about at election time. The speculations, to do with what the actual cost of anything might be in fact and in a circumstance where ‘commercial-in-confidence’ just does not cut it and it leaves ratepayers hung out to dry paying more and more without any expectation of aldermanic accountability.

It is all the more worrying when ratepayers get to thinking about just how they are being represented on subcommittees etc., committees like the Audit Panel, in an atmosphere of diminishing trust in Council’s accountability. Interestingly, if one does not pay one's rates you are likely to be 'sold up'.

When the bleedingly obvious and writ large for all to see it may be worth taking note. Even if it is a bit late it might be as good a time as any to own up to the serial stuff-ups. By doing so Council would be demonstrating that it is up front about its caring for cultural producers’ moral rights and community values. It might also be a time when cultural producers are valued via a public apology to Stephen Walker’s family and the ‘arts community’. 

Hopefully Launceston's alderpeople might want to consider correcting the record in regard to the financial shenanigans going relative the serial stuff ups currently in evidence. all this would have a particular resonance in the light of THE EXAMINER’s smoothed over history published May 19  – https://www.examiner.com.au/story/5476664/tasmanian-artist-stephen-walkers-lasting-mark-in-civic-square/?cs=95#slide=3

CLICK HERE TO GO TO SOURCE

Readership Still Climbing

Hip pocket pain awaits Glenorchy (& Launceston?)ratepayers to fund legal bills and staff payouts

DAVID KILLICK, State political reporter, Mercury May 18, 2018 7:30pm

GLENORCHY ratepayers have been warned to brace themselves for a steep rise in rates as the bills run up by the previous dysfunctional council fall due.

The council’s mayor and deputy say that not only are ratepayers set to bear the costs of the “arrogance and incompetence” of the previous council, but those responsible for the mess have so far gone unpunished.

As it formulates its 2018-19 budget, the council faces a multi-million dollar blowout thanks to legal bills from the long-running Board of Inquiry into the previous council, cost overruns on the King George V redevelopment and money squandered by the previous administration on consultants and staff restructures and the associated redundancy payments.

MORE: COUNCIL INQUIRY BILL TIPPED TO HIT $1M

MORE: GUTWEIN SACKS GLENORCHY CITY COUNCIL

The former council was sacked by Local Government Minister last year after a Board of Inquiry found significant failures of governance amid a culture of dysfunction and conflict.

A new council was elected in January.

Glenorchy Mayor Kristie Johnson. Picture: LUKE BOWDEN

Mayor Kristie Johnston said the expected rate rise was a bitter pill for ratepayers.

“We’re not quite at a stage of being able to put a precise figure but it certainly is very significant,” she said.

“We are very much aware that our community is a community that is largely on fixed incomes and that impost on household budgets will be significant.

“That’s why the council itself is angry that we’re put in this position and the community are angry that we are being put in this position because they have absolutely no consequences for the people who have done the wrong thing.”

MORE: GLENORCHY COUNCIL REPORT ‘SCATHING’

MORE: READ THE FULL BOARD OF INQUIRY REPORT

Ms Johnston said the cost of the sacked councillors would fall to ratepayers.

“We’re talking millions of dollars. There is very little cost savings that can be made when the council itself has already been stripped bare by their poor decision-making.

“Unfortunately the consequences will have to be borne by the community. We’re doing everything we can to avoid that situation but there is very little room to move.”

SAGA PART I: COUNCIL BESET BY RIVALRY AND SPITE

SAGA PART II: HOW THE COUNCIL TORE ITSELF APART

She said she was concerned that the two-year time limit for action under the Local Government Act was running out.

A Government spokesman said consideration of the Board of Inquiry report was ongoing.

“The Local Government Division and other authorities have had access to the Board of Inquiry’s report since it was tabled in Parliament in November 2017,” the spokesman said.

Glenorchy Deputy Mayor Matt Stevenson. Picture: NIKKI DAVIS-JONES

“Any action arising from the Board of Inquiry is a matter for those authorities to consider and take.”

Glenorchy deputy mayor Matt Stevenson said the council would consult with the community on the budget.

“For a community that has the highest unemployment, significant socio-economic disadvantage, it’s a cost that they can hardly bear without significant pain,” he said.

“The council clearly will not be taking any decision lightly, but were left with no option other than to consider how we can cover the costs of the previous administration.”

MORE: GLENORCHY TURNS BACK ON JOBS RESTRUCTURE

MORE: GLENORCHY COUNCIL REVIEW DECISION QUERY

He too expressed concern that those who had been responsible had not faced any sanction.

“It’s unfortunate that at this time there has been very little indication that any of those responsible will face consequences for the poor behaviour and poor actions and poor governance,” he said.

The Council’s budget is expected to be be brought down in June.

Secret Meetings Drives Candidate To Stand

CONTACT INFORMATION
eMAIL: psp02246@bigpond.net.au

Mobile: 0418 133 404

• A fair go for ratepayers!! ... Ratepayers' 1st, 2nd & 3rd
• Tired of the backroom deals!!
• Tired of council waste!!
• Tired of paying unnecessary rate increases!!

2018 IS STARTING TO LOOK LIKE A WORRY

Brie Larson, actor, filmmaker and musician, is supposed to have said something like that while you may not be  perfect, if you're willing to actually look at yourself and take on some kind of accountability, that would be a change. It might not mean that you can turn everything around, but it just might mean that there would be something incredibly hopeful to be found in you doing so. Launceston Council, and its ratepayers, needs 12 Bries around that table.

LEADERSHIP REQUIRED NOW

People Power: Communities funding their own wind and solar projects ... CLICK HERE 

If Launceston Is NOT Prepared To Lead, Has It Got What It Takes To Follow??

Lismore and Launceston are comparable cities in so many ways. However Lismore clearly has more 'get up and go'! Lismore wanted to do something for the community and rather than sideline the community and determine things behind closed doors their Council:

• Went to the community to borrow the required funds rather than levy ratepayers;
• Provided the community with a Business Case to support the loan request;
• Won community support and community engagement; and
• Is delivering on the triple bottom line and is taking the community along with Council in a spirit of collaboration rather than treat their ratepayers WITH CONTEMPT!

Consequently Lismore can not only aspire to be a WORLD LEADER it can boast about being one!

 Meanwhile, Launceston goes behind closed doors to make dump decision that lead to the Mayor's  now famous "extraneous expenses" that he and Council intend cover by slugging the  ratepayers ... yet again.

It's Time For Change! Way, Way Past TIME!

With the help of Suntrix, Lismore City Council is progressing with the installation of one of Australia’s largest floating solar systems, said to be the “first-ever” community funded project of its type. 

Presenting at the upcoming Ozwater’18 conference on the success of the floating solar pilot, Suntrix Chief Business Manager Geoff Fussell said the project was initially conceived when the council realised it didn’t have the ground space for a system large enough to meet its targets. 

“Lismore City Council made a commitment to cover its energy use with renewables. It identified sites with the highest power use, but realised there wasn't enough space to install the capacity of solar needed to offset its energy usage at the sewage treatment site,” Fussell said. 

“It identified that it had a large water space and pursued the opportunity to put floating solar onto that particular dam.” 

Suntrix won the contract and has since helped the council install a new type of photovoltaic solar system that’s modular, allowing for flexibility in terms of scaling up the system.

“It’s a modular system that is scalable. You have a main float that the panel is mounted to, and then the secondary float, which is set up for accessibility and maintenance. The floats come together as a large island and the solar panels get mounted onto that,” Fussell said. 

“It's the first modular scalable solution in Australia. There was a floating solar unit installed in Jamestown in 2015, but that's a totally different technology and that was only 30KW.”

The pilot floating solar system currently has a 100KW capacity, but Lismore City Council already has plans to scale the system up to 400KW due to the success of the program. 

“The existing 100KW capacity covers about 12% of energy usage on the site, so scaling it up to 400KW is going to cover close to half the energy usage on the site,” Fussell said. 

Furthermore, the modular system makes access and panel maintenance safer on larger-scale solar islands, making it more likely to be adopted, Fussell said. 

“It is also the first in the world to use a new development. The product had a shortcoming in terms of the Australian application. We are very OH&S conscious here. The opportunity was there to build a third float to provide a safe perimeter access to the island,” he said. 

“This project is now being adopted around the world. If we didn't develop the safe perimeter zone, floating solar would not be adopted in many cases as there was still a risk. We have alleviated that risk by developing the safe perimeter.”

Fussell said aside from being more effective due to temperature control from evaporation, floating solar also protects water bodies from algae growth due to limited sunlight, and reduces the huge amount of evaporation occurring due to exposed surface areas. 

“The advantage of putting the panels on water is that the evaporative effect keeps the panels closer to their most efficient temperature, meaning that you are getting the maximum benefit out of the panels capability,” he said. 

“You are also restricting sunlight to the water and restricting algae growth, which reduces the need for filtering. Also, it stalls evaporation. In Australia, we lose about two metres of water level a year via evaporation.”

“The bigger coverage of water you’ve got, the higher all of these benefits are.”

Register for Ozwater’18 to hear more from Geoff Fussell, who designed and project managed the construction of this floating solar system project. 

Related article:
Sustainable water management is essential with resources becoming constrained

LAUNCESTON'S BUDGET ALARM

SEE THE EXAMINER:
• http://www.examiner.com.au/story/5325820/approval-for-operating-budget-council-fees-on-agenda/
• http://www.examiner.com.au/story/5328694/pressured-council-budget-sees-rates-rise/?cs=95
• http://lcc63.blogspot.com.au/2018/04/be-aware-and-alert-its-election-year.html

STOP PRESS: Labbrokes are offering interesting odds on Ald. Finlay leading Council into CLOSED COUNCIL to discuss MONEY.

The Ratepayers Are Getting Angry

Steve Rogers, of South Launcestons, shares 

his views on the 

North Bank development in Launceston.

North Bank

IS IT not good news that the North Bank playground development, at great expense is going ahead?

The great news is that there have been zero representations against this project .

Has the council ever thought that a lot of ratepayers feel it is a complete waste of time, even putting forward a representation against any of the projects, funded by ratepayers of Launceston?

I see all the piling required for the work is complete, before the final development application.

Who foots the bill for the insurance on a venture like this?

What happens if some child, or some intoxicated twit, falls from the proposed 12-metre high sky walk?

By the way, is it time now that the Launceston ratepayers are mature enough, or privileged enough or allowed to know just how much was spent on the LED advertising around the York Park or Aurora Stadium. 

Hang on, now its UTAS Stadium isn't it?

Is it any wonder the ratepayers are not bothered to attend meetings?  The council just pushes the vote through after the job has started.

Steve Rogers, South Launceston.

EDITOR'S NOTE

Launcestonians and Northern Tasmanians last night had the spectacle of Launceston's Mayor on TV bleating away about LGH losing its Emergency Medicine Accreditation. 

Up to now he's been singing the government's praises on almost everything and after the election we find him bleating away as if anybody in government listens. 

They know that he hasn't got the gonads to do anything that'd hurt them so they let him bleat as people bleed and choose to live elsewhere as the city becomes a more and more dangerous place to live.

He and the whole Council should hand in their chips right now and let an administrator take the city to an election for a more accountable Council if we cannot get amalgamation.

SPEAK UP & SPEAK OUT 

RESIDENTS & RATEPAYERS!

A Very Bad Fit

With planning like this you do have to wonder who is into who for what!! This is outrageous planning for a cultural landscape like Launceston's ... outrageous!!

Tell those who claim to represent you what 

you think about rubbish like this in our city!!

Something smells like dead fish at Town Hall

GO TO: https://www.facebook.com/IslandBlock/ to the post and read the comments and if you care share the post and have your say among YOUR network.

Island Block put this on their Facebook site this afternoon and it raises some very serious questions about the credibility and accountability of not only Council's operation but also the credibility and accountability of the elected representatives.

The comments on FACEBOOK speaks volumes about what the constituency thinks about how Council spends money they borrowed on ratepayers behalf without consultation.

In the vernacular, you really do have to wonder who is into who for how much and how deeply. This Council shows all the signs of every last representative holding their constituents in contempt and its way past being funny. 

The Local Govt Act under Section 65 allows the GM to deem whoever she/he likes to be an 'expert' and guarantee their advice. Moreover she/he can do anything they find convenient under Section 62 even if that happens to be  against a determination of the elected representatives. Worrying isn't it!

There are substantial amounts of money involved here – ratepayers money!. Are ratepayers getting a big enough bang for their bucks?

If you think not ... TELL THEM THAT YOU ARE NOT HAPPY ... phone them, email them, comment on social media, speak up every which way and do not forget that this is an ELECTION YEAR.

BTW: This site tonight just 

nudged 63,000 readers