Wednesday, 18 May 2016

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 +1000
Subject: 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.



1 comment:

  1. It comes down to this...

    Why did the Council gift scarce ratepayer/public assets in the form of land to UTas without going to tender or seeking other alternative and without involving ratepayers?


    To protect ratepayer assets and help assure honesty, what protection against corrupt practices does Council now use since it appears to have rejected open-ness and transparency in this case?