A QUESTIONABLE REPORT CARD FOR LAUNCESTON CITY COUNCIL

There is a growing number of citizens, ratepayers and residents in Launceston who are despairing at the ‘goings on’ at their city’s Town Hall. This is cumulative and especially so in regard to:

• Meeting processes and fiscal reporting; 
• Aldermanic participation and community engagement;
• The maintenance of culture of secrecy/confidentiality; 
• Community engagement and consultation; and
• Adherence to Organisational Values.

As a point of interest, Launceston council’s AGM proceedings, despite there being much to report on, has essentially been ignored by the press. Why might that be so? 

Despite  engaging with social media, arguably nominally, council hasn't posted a media release on its website since March 2014.

Financial reporting, as available to the public, is opaque and confusing to the extent that ratepayers, the council's key stakeholders, are functionally excluded from the assessment of financial records.

Launceston is Tasmania’s largest council with the largest operating budget in the state. It is also legendary that Launceston's council levies the highest rates in the State. How did the council arrive at this point where its constituency is treated with disregard and not taken into account?

In consideration of all this, the council’s apparent lack of accountability to its citizens is no small thing. 

It is now abundantly clear that the city’s council is arguably out of touch with its citizenry. Moreover, this is demonstrated when the city's AGM is so poorly, indeed inadequately promoted, that its attendance is minuscule. Apparently, the constituency is 'blamed' and neither the aldermen collectively, nor management, see the community's disengagement as being any kind of a problem.

In fact, anecdotally, council is apparently seen as some kind of opportunity to advance pet projects and to hold off on initiatives outside various aldermen's direct interest. Anecdotally again, issues get to be glossed over if they are imagined as being contrary to management's interests and program.

All things considered, it is unsurprising that the recent AGM meeting, and increasingly so for meetings before it, was so poorly attended despite what was, or might have been, at stake. Interestingly, questions have even been raised in regard to the state of the 2015 meeting given some attending believe that a quorum might not have been in attendance throughout the meeting. 

If it was the case, and given that a quorum is so small, half the aldermen plus one, why didn't the mayor notice and draw attention to the state of affairs?

In fact, printed copies of council’s financial report were not available to many residents because too few had been printed and ratepayer's were turned away from Town Hall for several days prior to the AGM.  How might citizens ask informed questions about the city’s expenditures if the financial reporting was not made easily available to them? 

Given the lack of press attention to the AGM,  both before and after the meeting, it begs the question ..... was the lack of press attention actually welcomed? 

Similarly, in the light of the council committing the city to gift of public land to the University of Tasmania, despite public disquiet, it is notable that the aldermen were so disinterested in their accountability and constituent’s concerns as to bypass them, totally disengage the concerns and vote unanimously for gifting the land. 

By any measure it would appear as if the aldermen lacked the social licence that would enable them to function as aldermen.

It was the university that called the so-called "Town Hall Meeting" and not as one would expect Launceston City Council given that access to PUBLIC LAND that was at issue. 

Nonetheless, the meeting was anything but a ringing endorsement for the council's and the university's public position being advocated at the meeting. That is a  position arrived at without either public disclosure or meaningful public consultation.

In regard to LCC's financial reporting, and despite its “statutory adequacy”, the  financial reports lack detail and they hardly provide the level of reporting that a truly accountable corporate entity should be providing to its constituency and stakeholders. 

On what evidence can LCC's financial performance and service outcome be measured? Also, how can achievements be truly assessed? It is possible that the Auditor General's audit may touch upon issues of public interest.

It has been said elsewhere that Launcestonians might well feel like they are being treated like proverbial mushrooms set aside in a darkened room. Maybe they shouldn’t feel slighted. Outraged yes! Surprised, absolutely not!