INVITATION PUBLIC MEETING TUES JUNE 7 AT 7PM ALBERT HALL

Launceston Council's And The Press' Visual Messaging

CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO ENLARGE

When most people picked up their Examiner last Saturday they got the message or 'a message' but was it the one The Examiner had carefully crafted. Let there be no mistake the image was made very, very carefully by the photographer and later on it was carefully chosen by the editor – that's their job. As designed the front of the paper last Saturday was loaded with layers of visual messaging and heaps of it.

Body language is a powerful communication strategy and something that some of us use unconsciously but others use it very deliberately – especially professional politicians. 

For instance arms crossed over the chest can indicate that a person is being defensive. It can also demonstrate that the individual with crossed arms disagrees with the opinions or actions of other individuals with whom they are communicating – Reference Link 

It is often worth spending some time quite deliberately unpicking the visual messaging we are presented with – everyone can do it. In fact we get a great deal of our messages in newspapers subliminally. If we are not, then the newspaper is being a 'tad dumb' and the editor should be sacked for dereliction of duty.

However, last Saturday a LCC News and Examiner reader got an unwelcomed message. She has passed on the distress she felt and her mental trauma to LCC News. When she found last Saturday's paper on the breakfast table she "freaked out". It turns out that she had been a participant in a vexatious and somewhat difficult exchange with Launceston Council and its management that traumatised her at the time. This event represents an ongoing trauma for her and seeing this image sparked an episode of anxiety and distress. 

NO its not the obviously intended message but it was nonetheless distressing.

It must be said that this reaction could not have been anticipated by The Examiner or anyone else. Likewise, the Mayors would not have given this sort of thing a moments thought when posing for the shot. Nonetheless, when this kind of 'image making' goes on there is layerings of messaging that its worth our while unpicking – and if you're in front of a camera its worth thing about too.

CLICK HERE TO GO TO SOURCE

This particular image in The Examiner for instance carries layer upon layer of subliminal messages – intended and unintended.  Interestingly its an old image but it is drawn to LCC News attention time after time in various contexts – and few in the original one.

Social Media in fact depends almost entirely upon visual messaging. Think about it, people can read a visual message in nano-seconds and it take quite a bit longer to read any text associated with it.

Basil Fitch Asks Pertinent Questions Of Launceston Council

CLICK HERE: Questions Without Notice - Launceston Council Meeting 23 May 2016

Basil Fitch congratulate the Mayor in bringing Mayors of surrounding councils in the northern area to a MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING to support the proposed UTas move to Inveresk and Willis Street.

Furthermore he notes that there are consequences to this outcome and he thus poses a series of questions to Council. LCC News will be watching the outcome of Mr. Fitche's questioning very carefully!

Why Launceston Council should be audited carefully and results made public

CONSULTANT'S REPORT

Background

To create organisations that are resistant to corruption is normally an important priority. 

Typical basic protections are procedural transparency, public tenders and open-ness of information and records to the public or other stakeholders. Such measures are especially important when large amounts of public monies are involved. 

Using structured means of assuring lack of corruption is particularly important when a lot of public money is at stake. 

Launceston Council is the State's largest council charging rates well above other Councils in Australia. The organisation also engages in numerous loss making non-core activities like a gymnasium even thought that competes with ratepayer businesses. While the council purports to be committed to transparency and open-ness, all evidence is to the contrary, raising concerns about how well the Council is protecting public assets.

Current situation

The Launceston Council has announced its intention to 'gift' ratepayer/public land to UTas to help it move closer to the city. 

Despite the value of the asset ($3+ million) the Council has made the offer behind closed doors and has resisted attempts by some concerned ratepayers to obtain a clear explanation of why the land was given away, instead of seeking tenders to assure that maximum value for the ratepayers' asset was achieved. 

The only recourse to community members interested in ascertaining why so much value was given to a successful University without employing accepted means to assure probity, turned out to hold a petition calling on the Council to explain themselves at a public meeting. 

Council's main response to the 1,000 plus name petition has been to focus on the value to the University of the move, without addressing ratepayer concerns that are natural when movements of money and assets are only described after an offer was made to the University and to structure a meeting that in a way that appears unlikely to satisfy ratepayer concerns. 

None of the aldermen appear to have insisted on the typical anti-corruption and probity methods described in Council's own 'values', and the organisation and its actions are once more suspect.

Other comment

For a big spending Council such as Launceston ($100+ million p.a.) to go to such lengths to avoid scrutiny, and to offer such a valuable asset as land without any ratepayer involvement, is in and of itself highly suspicious. 

Coupled with the vague annual accounts, confusing reports, closed door decisions and general resistance to respected methods of assuring probity, the actions of the Council appear completely inexplicable. 

As it stands, no-one in the community can be sure that the entire deal wasn't made to achieve some particular advantage for an individual within the Council or that ratepayer interests were considered or respected. 

To resolve community concerns and assure that the reputation of all involved in the offer of free land, an independent audit of Council affairs with a public reporting of results is surely in order.

R. Barton, Consultant, A Better Australia 

Northern Mayors Call on PM For UTas Funding

•

"Northern Tasmanian mayors have today united as signatories to a letter to Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull to confirm their support for the University of Tasmania's proposed move to an inner city campus. George Town Mayor Bridget Archer, Northern Midlands Mayor David Downie, Launceston Mayor Albert van Zetten and Dorset Mayor Greg Howard (pictured above) met at Inveresk this morning to sign the letter: University of Tasmania Vice Chancellor Peter Rathjen and Bass Liberal MP Sarah Courtney were also present. Mayor van Zetten said he hoped the solidarity from Northern councils would ultimately lead to a commitment from the Federal Liberal Party. Federal Opposition Leader Bill Shorten has already committed to the project, should Labor be elected. "We will send this letter to the Prime Minister of Australia to say how important this project is for Northern Tasmania," Mayor van Zetten said. "The Prime Minister has spoken a lot about jobs and growth in this election. Here we have an opportunity to create jobs for Northern Tasmania, but also a transformation of our city and region, to improve our education outcomes. That is why all the Mayors of the region are happy to come together -- because it's about the whole region and how we can encourage and improve education into the future. "We are very excited that the Federal Labor Party has already committed $150m towards this project, but we want to see the Liberals make this commitment as well because it is a game-changer for Northern Tasmania."

Launceston Council's Mandate – What is it?

Its a somewhat sobering exercise to look back at the mandate won by Launceston's aldermen at the last election when there was a spill of all positions and where the mandate runs until 2018. 

Clearly, if there were to be an election this year for half the council, as was once the case, one might imagine that some aldermen might well be modifying their behaviors in regard to some matters. The question of a mandate, and for what, is an interesting one. It is interesting in so much as it goes to both accountability and the representational role of a council and by extension individual aldermen.

Various commentators have claimed that the number of signatures on the Citizens' Petition  – almost 1,500 and authorized signatories falling comfortably over the 1,000 – "is insignificant". In the context of local government in Launceston. The council's mandate to operate unilaterally is very much open to contention and it is hard to see upon what basis it is imagined that there is in fact a mandate to do so.

The first observation to be made is that, as an alderman, the mayor has a clear and arguably an unassailable  aldermanic mandate. However his mandate as mayor is open to contention given that he hold the post on a touch under 46% of first preferences that translates to 50.20% after preferences – hardly a clear mandate. 

The deputy mayor's position is a quite different issue in that three candidates drew less than 30% of first preferences and the winning candidate scoring just over 50% after preferences were distributed to win the post – again hardly a mandate.

Of the all aldermen, after the mayor, only two received more 1,500 first preference votes and only five of the remaining aldermen received more than 1,000 first preference votes – hardly the basis for a claim that in comparison to the petitioners they collectively hold some kind of authoritative mandate.

The remaining three aldermen with significantly less that 1,000 first preferences should be paying very close attention to their constituency rather than teaming up with some issue based cabal or other to claim a supposed mandate – something for which no grouping could realistically claim that they had won in regard to so many issues upon which council asserts its authority.

All in all the numbers offer nothing much upon which hubristic claims of a mandate might be asserted. Rather the numbers point to council needing to work quite diligenently in order to operate within an inclusive, consultative and representational framework towards winning a community social license to govern.

 CLICK ON AN IMAGE TO ENLARGE

http://www.tec.tas.gov.au/LocalGovernmentElections2014/2014LGResults/LauncestonCity.html

MORGAN POLL CHECK IT OUT

TO GO TO SOURCE AND UPDATES CLICK HERE

SUBMISSION: L'ton Council Public Meeting

This correspondence has been forwarded to:

• The Mayor for his action; and 
• Minister Gutwein for his information

Forwarded Message

From: M (Name removed for privacy reasons)

Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 13:24:54 +1000Subject: A submission to Council re: public meeting

Just a line to say what a Lonnie ratepayer like me is thinking.

The public meeting was called due to a successful petition by community members that wanted an explanation (better a discussion) on why specifically the Council offered to gift millions of dollars of public assets, in the form of land, to a wealthy and successful university when so many  ratepayers were struggling financially. Another question is why no apparent attempt to canvass other means of disposing of the land that offered greater ratepayer benefits (e.g. tenders) as made.

Council is quick to put up rates, but it seems very reluctant to include ratepayers in proposals that could advantage Council staff and executives with other government groups by dispensing favours and that could disadvantage ratepayers financially.

Public concerns are not about whether UTas should move to the city, they are about Council gifting public assets without ratepayer involvement.

Petitioners, I think, therefore would want a meeting which clarifies why Council decided to gift ratepayer/public assets without seeking tenders or similar; and that demonstrates that advantages to Council staff cannot be achieved in this way.

Cheers,

M

CITY OF LAUNCESTON PUBLIC MEETING ADVERTISEMENT

Section 60A(2) of the Local Government Act 1993 (Tas) (the Act) requires Council to:

(a) publish a notice on at least 2 occasions in a daily newspaper circulating in the municipal area; and 

(b) send to the person who lodged the petition. 

The notice will be published for a second time in the Examiner on Saturday 14 May 2016.

The actions taken by Council in relation to the public meeting are directed at meeting the legislative requirements as set out in the Act.

Public Meeting - Submission to the General Manager Robert Dobrzynski

You may wish to use this form to make a written submission to the General Manager in respect of the subject matter explained below.

Written submissions must be lodged with Council by 5pm Wednesday 1 June 2016.

You may use a Council form to make your written submission but that is not compulsory.

The City of Launceston 
will hold a 
PUBLIC MEETING
@

 7pm on Tuesday 
7 June 2016 

Albert Hall

Corner of Tamar and Cimitiere Streets, Launceston. 

This meeting is being held following a petition seeking a public meeting being lodged with the Council. Subject matter of the public meeting As described by the petition, the subject matter of the public meeting will be: 

1. That the Launceston City Council call a Public Meeting for the purpose of discussing the Council's decision to transfer (free gift) land, known as Willis Street Car Park and Old Velodrome. 
2. Call on Council to rescind the motion passed by the Full Council Meeting 9th November 2015 to transfer said land (free gift) to UTAS. 
3. That the said land be placed for sale on the open market via a public auction with a Reserve Price of $5 million. 

Options for lodging your submission:

• Print and complete this form, and return it via email, post or in person. 
• If you do not wish to use the Council form, your written submission will be accepted by email, post or in person. 

City of Launceston's contact details are provided at the bottom of this page.

Remember that your submission must be received by 5pm Wednesday 1 June 2016. 

At the public meeting Submissions will be summarised by the General Manager and will be made available to people who attend the public meeting. Your name and contact details will not be included in the summary.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE COUNCIL FORM

When making your own submission LCC News would appreciate it if you:

1. Make your submission by eMAIL to City of Launceston General Manager 

• Robert Dobrzynski  Robert.Dobrzynski@launceston.tas.gov.au

2. Please copy your submission to  

      LAUNCESTON PROJECTS –  launcestonprojects@bigpond.com 

     So that your submission can be put on this website for the information of others making submissions

3. At the top of your submission please provide your contact details and the date submitted 

•  Unit/street number: 
• Street name: 
• Suburb:                   State:            Postcode: 
• Daytime phone number: 
• Email address: 

• Council may wish to use this information to contact you if they have a question about your submission        OR
• LCC News may wish to contact you with additional information relevant to the meeting

LETTER TO THE EDITOR: UTas And Election Hopes

Version:1.0 StartHTML:0000000149 EndHTML:0000003514 StartFragment:0000000199 EndFragment:0000003480 StartSelection:0000000199 EndSelection:0000003480
Sir

Federal Treasurer Scott Morrison is correct in his statement over funding for the proposed move to Inveresk that there are more pressing issues in Tasmania  whilst canvassing in Braddon on Tuesday and again on Wednesday when he quite correctly advised the appropriate Minister will address the issue.

The writer would venture to say the Minister for Education Senator Birmingham is likely to say Launceston has a University at an open space facility  in close proximity to the city and a very convenient shopping precint.

Inveresk has inherrent problems with traffic management and very major infrastructure problem over an inadequate sewage an storm water problem due to Launceston City Council deviating from upgrading the sewage and storm water system which was a priority by the council in the 1980.s and early 1990,s which requires at least 500 million dollars to rectify now.

When Prime Minister Turnbull was Minister for Enviroment in the Howard Government a committment was made to assist states to move to a combined water sewage authority the state minister Michael Aird moved on this commitment and three bodies were formed , however the Howard Government lost the election , it has been normal practice for incoming governments to honour that commitment.

The Rudd Government did not and instead gave the country the failed pink batts programme .

Aspiring Labor candidate Ross Hart would have grounds for a move to Inveresk had the capital works for sewage infrastructure been a reality.

Because of economic restraint Minister Morris is correct Tasmania has more pressing problems.

 Brian P. Khan

PETITION PROGRESS

Click on the image to enlarge