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
There are two chartered accountants on the council and they’ll claim that every thing is just dandy. But they would say that wouldn’t they! Then they’ll tell you that the Auditor General audits them annually and they come up shinny. Again, they are most likely to tell you that in their sanitized annual report. If you ask for evidence that the books are straight you are likely to be told that the information you are looking for is “commercial in confidence” and we do everything by the book so there is nothing to see. But they would say that anyway wouldn’t they? Perhaps that’s why there needs to be an independent audit just so we can all believe them.
ReplyDeleteLouise, Another Ratepayer
DeleteAnd an independent audit would show if the council really did get paid $500,000 by the university towards the flood levy rebuild instead of paying for the land where it built the student accommodation at Inveresk.
Louise, Another Ratepayer