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

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.