THE CHANGE PARADIGM AND ELECTIONS

THE STORY

.
COUNCIL ELECTIONS: Now that council elections are coming up I have to ask who in the George Town municipality is worth voting for? 

As a country resident I know only one councillor who has stood up for us and fought for our needs. As far as I know the rest of them couldn’t care less. 

 If they want my vote and those of the rest of the country areas, how about taking the time to visit these areas and discuss their needs and grievances and show they are capable of doing more than just increasing the rates every year. ......................... Malcolm McCulloch, Pipers River.


WHY VOTE IN COUNCIL ELECTIONS?

Bloody good question! The increasing level of disconnects between aldermen/councillors is concerning. It has become more so with the all-in-all-out-four-year-terms that Tasmanian now have been saddled with. 

There was a time when you could laugh off say the excesses of Launceston's Robin McKendrick who was so very often quoted as saying, paraphrased, 'we were elected to make decisions let's get on and make them' and 'if they do not like it then they can vote us out.' It's the stuff of legends and it never really passed the pub test.

This world view of local government in Tasmania seems to be as prevalent in George Town, Launceston, Hobart, Southern Midlands as it might be anywhere. However, if you use Launceston as lens that would frighten the pants of kangaroo.

The thing is, frightening the punters into compliance, no matter how absurd, is where we have come to. It all boils down to doing whatever is, being 'done to' the constituency rather than 'for or even with' the people – and at 'Council's convenience' no less.

At $35K a year it seems that is what you get in an alderman. So, it is very much a case of 'being extremely careful about what you wish for' especially when you consider voting for the 'rusted-on crew'.

For example, Launcestonians have been saddled with a $20Million debt that they had no say in. This is outrageous and there is more to come.

Now is the time to tell the 'rusted-ons' around council tables, this merry band of deluded sycophants, that it is time to go spend more time with their families etc. However, when it comes to paying up, being held accountable, the 'rusted-os' will be over the hill and far away along with others around the table who snuck off into darkened rooms to give all this sort of thing a tick.

In the end these 'rusted-ons' just want things to stay just the same. They just want their allowance cheques to keep on being deposited, their fringe benefits to keep on being available, to not really having to worry too much as they give a management recommendations at tick, being able to hide behind confidentiality when things get tough, continuing to be 'seen to being seen' without it interfering with the rust to much.

Therefore, what needs to be done is as some of the smart commentators say these days is "disrupt the status quo". Enough already of the same old, same old! Now let's have some community engagement and then some accountability  and transparency.

Each and every ratepayer/resident voting needs to carefully question themselves in regard to how they are voting, why and who for. Then they need to ask the candidates that they are thinking of voting to vote for why they do it. Having done so, they will surely finfd that there is a myriad of reasons for change.

If you look at what's before you and scrape away the bovine dust you will find multiple reasons to vote for change and then for accountability and transparency – truth and justice if you like as they used to say in the comics.

Tandra Vale

CIVIC WORKS CRITIQUES AND WORRIES

CLICK HERE TO GO TO SOURCE

Brisbane Street Mall FROM THE EXAMINER 27.9.18

SO NOW the Brisbane Street mall is unveiled. 

Some pretty trees, animals that, if one is not paying attention, are very easy to fall over, and strange white and yellow seats. 

In the middle, nothing except a large very bland space.

As a shop owner said to me last week regarding the Quadrant mall “it's like a morgue”. There is nothing to entice the population into the city centre with this refurbishment.

Perhaps if the sad little creatures in the Brisbane Street mall were put on a pedestal in the middle of the bland centre it would add some character, otherwise it's just another blah space created with great inconvenience to the shops and great expense to taxpayers.

Here’s a radical thought, maybe offer free or much cheaper parking in the central business district and people might come in. 

Next time a public space is going for a revamp ask kindergarten children to submit a design. I'm sure they could do better.

Glennis Sleurink, Launceston.

LETTER TO THE MAYOR ANS ALDERMEN

To hear yesterday of the realisation of the inappropriate placement of the ‘thylacine sculptures’ in the Mall, and to see the documentation on FACEbook, and the ‘hoohaha’ on 7LA, it was distressing given that it all could have been avoided – and relatively easily. Indeed, it should have been avoided given that when the first schematic plan was ‘released’ last year I made the effort to point out the ‘specific public danger issue’ – that I believe was well and truly over a year or more ago.

Moreover, I’ve been in several conversations since then, each time the issue of the ‘thylacines tails issue’ was discussed and in particular the unacceptable public risk the sculptures presented in their projected format and placement came up one way or the other. Mostly, it was on nobody’s radar screen – someone else's problem! The clear message I was getting was that “my input” was unwelcome and “what the hell would I know anyway”. It was not for nothing that I was appointed to the Tasmanian Arts Advisory Board – even if some time ago now – to among other things, administer its Arts for Public Buildings Program. In that role, this kind of issue was ‘stock standard.’ Thus, I can claim firsthand experience and some expertise.

So, as things turn out, and given that at that time, my qualifications and experience did not rate for the purposes of SECTION 65 of the Local Govt Act – expertise is something deemed by the General Manager and not to be challenged by the elected representatives.

This tells me quite a few things– and possibly Council now too. In concert with the apparently serial ‘stuff ups’ to do with civic works in the CBD and the ‘forensic audit’(?) that I understand is now going on relative to other issues along with this ‘glitch’, and the apparent extraordinary expense all together is a sad indictment of Council’s ‘modus operandi’. 

Nonetheless, I suspect that it is all bound to be ‘conveniently smoothed over’ along with the ‘Tasmanian Tableau debacle’. The ‘oops, but nothing really to see here, fob off’ just doesn’t cut it I’m sorry to say.

Quite aside from the extraordinary circumstances relative to this set of civic projects that puts ratepayers $20Million in debt, the flaws in the processes and outcomes are going to compound that debt. That the debt’s expenditure in Civic Square and the Mall does not deliberately add a dollar to the city’s income is unfathomable.

To add insult to injury the audit itself suggests that the problems are significant but as likely as not ratepayers will be left to bear the cost – the audit and the mistakes’ costs albeit quantified – as collectively you 'governors' simply shrug your shoulders and just walk away from your accountability as elected representatives and notionally unchallenged. 

No doubt you’ll be telling your constituents that there is no other way forward and that we’ll be witnessing yet again your disinclination to apologise for the ratepayers’ burgeoning burden whilst you all look away. It is clear that you are  trying to pretend that the toxic culture at Town Hall is but a figment of the imagination of the cohort I converse with from time to time. 

Possibly, the upcoming elections may temper your disinclination to be accountable. It’s with considerable interest that I look forward to your response given the current circumstances and we might even see some fess-ups. Hope springs eternal. Yet one feels there is much more to come!

Ray Norman

Researcher & Cultural Geographer

Launceston

EDITOR'S NOTE; Ratepayers need to be pressing their Aldermen for transparency in regard to what's being described as a "forensic audit" of the civic works in Civic Square and The Mall and possibly other sites. 

It is being speculated that there may well be "significant budget overruns".  If so. it is likely that this will impact upon the city's debt somewhat and consequently ratepayer's debt to be paid via major increases in rates.

At election time claiming convenient 'commercial in confidence' is totally inappropriate and if that call is made ratepayers may well take NO DISCLOSURE as an indicator of the seriousness of what's being covered up.

'

LOCAL GOVT PUBLIC WORKS ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY

Accountability in Local Govt.is being talked about more and more but it is not being delivered on because it is believed that Sections 62 and 65 in LOCAL GOVT ACT provide a let-off for General Managers and others. 

Around Tasmania quite a few GMs have been playing the '62/65 line' and it is starting get just a little tedious, and expensive, for ratepayers. 

Far too many decisions are made behind closed doors well away from public scrutiny and that needs to stop. 

It is often going on it seems against the provisions of the Act as it is currently drafted and the aldermen who let it happen sooner or later become complicit. 

It seems that at Launceston Town Hall there is currently a 'cabal operatives and representatives' playing both ends off against the middle and ratepayers look like they are the least of their considerations. 

So, against this background and the spurious way the city raised the loans for the current civic works – and therefore built upon the ratepayers' debt – Council now finds itself in debt to the tune of $20Million. That is bound to add to individual rate demands and quite soon. 

On top of the debt brought on by loans taken from the State Govt. the hurried works program in Civic Square and the Brisbane Street Mall there is every prospect that the 'works budget will blow out, and in a big way' consequent to the project being rushed in order to have work finished "for the elections". 

Given that the expenditure does not, will not and is not designed to generated income, the growing cost of what are beginning to be called 'monumental stuff ups' falls to the ratepayers almost to the very last cent. There is nowhere else to go unless you have fairies at the bottom of your garden waiting to help out. 

So, what to do?  Accountability and transparency demands that:

1. The extent of these 'project issues' are identified and promptly;
2. The total cost of any 'project budget overruns' needs to be identified and promptly; 
3. The contractual arrangements relevant to the sourcing of materials and design work needs to be investigated and promptly; and
4. The root cause/s of problems need to be identified and made public.

There is no credible way to do these things other by initiating an 'independent forensic audit'. Once such an audit's outcomes are known the tools to deal with 'the issues' will at least be to hand. The appointment of a suitably qualified independent auditor needs to be made outside Council and Tasmania.

In the short term this issue must be an election issue with the current alderpeople being front and centre in regard to accountability in line with Minister Gutwein's 'GOOD GOVERNANCE GUIDE' ... CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION.

Beyond that, candidates for council need to be apprised of the situation that is presenting itself as soon as possible.

THE LAUNCESTON COUNCIL $100 PLEDGE

Aldermen committed to the status quo will give you reason upon reason in regard to how this is not possible and that it runs against standard practice. That is in fact okay and there is no such thing as 'standard practice' in fiscal matters any way. Risk taking is never the safe way, but the 'safe way' is all too often the worst way – especially so cumulatively.

Think about it, if you have been managing your affairs in a particular way and your business is failing, what kind of fool would you need to be to keep on doing what you've always done.

Apologies to those who run their lives the same way without question!

The $100 pledge is quite simple, and once taken there will be all kinds of flow-on consequences. Strangely, once you start to look for ways forward towards a more sustainable fiscal regime all kinds of option present themselves. Quite possibly, more than the pledge itself can actually be delivered.

Traditionally, Council budgets are framed by 'the operatives' who decide what sort of money they want for a comfortable life delivering a program, add a contingency amount and conscript the funds required. 

IT'S TIME FOR CHANGE. It is time that 'operational wisdom' is put through its paces and now would be a good time to start.

Minister Gutwein: Local Government Act review tipped to modernise councils

A review of the Local Government Act has been proposed, with an eye to applying a more contemporary framework to the sector as a whole ...... With 2018 marking the 25^th anniversary of the act, Local Government Minister Peter Gutwein said it was “crucial” the legislation governing councils always “reflects and supports” community expectations. ...... “The past quarter of a century has seen significant social, economic and technological changes,” he said. ...... “The role of councils and community expectations have expanded in line with these changes.” ...... Mr Gutwein noted the act had been amended on a number of occasions over the preceding 25 years, responding to “an increasingly changing and dynamic environment”. ...... But he said the state government had formed the view that “continuous, ‘catch-up’ amendments” were neither efficient nor sustainable. ...... The review will seek to ensure greater innovation, flexibility and productivity in local government, less red tape and increased accountability and transparency in the sector. ...... A discussion paper will be released in the coming months.

AND THIS FOLLOWS https://www.examiner.com.au/story/5430766/state-government-must-take-leadership-on-local-government-reform/

"The state government needs to take a larger role in enforcing local government reform, according to two peak business bodies....... Launceston Chamber of Commerce executive officer Neil Grose and Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry chief executive Michael Bailey said the state government should review its policy of not forcing council amalgamations. ...... However, Local Government Association of Tasmania president Doug Chipman said councils were taking steps to improve efficiency, without merging. AND "Many of Tasmania’s smaller councils do not have the economy of scale to be financially sustainable. Launceston Chamber of Commerce executive officer Neil Grose. 

EDITOR'S NOTES: Ask any Alderperson/Councillor and they'll tell you that their council is an exemplary model of representational governance and amalgamations are not required, not desirable and generally not the way to go. The subtext being i want to keep my allowances.

So with impending council elections the Minister is bound to come out huffing and puffing looking like he wants to do something. It gets the natives excited and they'll seem all the more relaxed once he decides that he cannot really do anything given community attitudes or some such blither.

Quite clearly Tasmania' system of local governance is broken, 21st C irrelevant and way too expensive. It's time to get back to the basics. A councillor, in the capacity of an individual councillor, has the following three key . functions: to represent the community; to act in the best interests of the community; to facilitate communication by the council with the community.

The councillors of a council collectively have the following functions:

(a) to develop and monitor the implementation of strategic plans and budgets;

(b) to determine and monitor the application of policies, plans and programs for –

(i) the efficient and effective provision of services and facilities; and

(ii) the efficient and effective management of assets; and

(iii) the fair and equitable treatment of employees of the council;

(c) to facilitate and encourage the planning and development of the municipal area in the best interests of the community;

(d) to appoint and monitor the performance of the general manager;

(e) to determine and review the council's resource allocation and expenditure activities;

(f) to monitor the manner in which services are provided by the council.

So, looking around in a population of  a mere half a million in the 21st C, where can the number of competent people be found to adequately acquit themselves to fulfill these function and who would 'pass the pub test'? 

With 29 councils the seats around the tables are as often as not filled by lazy seat warmers, never-wassers, chancers, rent-seekers, virtue-signallers and various other reprobates. Taking all this into account there is a bit for the Minister to think about but will he?

There is something like a $2Billion expenditure committed to councils and given current outcomes the question needs to be asked .... ARE TASMANIANS GETTING VALUE FOR MONEY?

Martene J Notcher