 |
| CLICK HERE FOR LIONEL MORRELL'S SUBMISSION |
The Examiner today gave a reasonably basic account of the meeting but as always there'll be arguments about the numbers [SEE THE EXAMINER] yet the thing is that Council had minuscule support in the room.
The council's position of unequivocal and uncritical acceptance of the UTas proposition – albeit unsupported by any compelling evidence – is concerning.
The council's position of unequivocal and uncritical acceptance of the UTas proposition – albeit unsupported by any compelling evidence – is concerning.
It is somewhat concerning when the aldermen are left to represent themselves when they do not appear to be representing their constituency. Aldermen leave themselves open to unwelcomed speculation – warranted, unwarranted, scurrilous, substantiated, whatever – and that does not serve the community at all well.
The main point to be made here is that Council is a long way from claiming anything that looks like a consensus on this issue and possibly other issues too.
Dr Powell presented the meeting with a passionate account of the risks both the council and the university face in an era of change. Likewise his account of how the UTas northern campus had been "asset stripped" pointed to deep inequities in regard to the delivery of post-secondary education and training in the Tamar region.
Furthermore, he said that the 10,000 plus additional students can’t be guaranteed and is an aspirational figure only based on demographics, not facts, hence it is a fraud to say that figure will eventuate from this proposal.
Dr Powell presented the meeting with a passionate account of the risks both the council and the university face in an era of change. Likewise his account of how the UTas northern campus had been "asset stripped" pointed to deep inequities in regard to the delivery of post-secondary education and training in the Tamar region.
Furthermore, he said that the 10,000 plus additional students can’t be guaranteed and is an aspirational figure only based on demographics, not facts, hence it is a fraud to say that figure will eventuate from this proposal.
Council claimed a majority of aldermen support their decision but that's hardly representational governance or anything like the good governance the Minister Gutwein is looking for in his guidance on Local Govt. and to quote that guide ... “Good governance is accountable; Good governance is transparent; Good governance is law-abiding; Good governance is responsive; Good governance is equitable; Good governance is participatory and inclusive; Good governance is effective and efficient; Good governance is consensus oriented “
On the consensus count, in regard to the gifting of land, 'consensus' seems to have eluded Launcestonians. It also appears that the council believes that ratepayers and residents need to have decision making imposed upon them rather than bringing them on board in a consensus wherever possible.
It's sad reflection that it takes the expenditure of so much effort on the part of a council, and the community, to have any kind of conversation about an issue that impacts quite heavily upon the whole community.
Looking forward, if the council wishes to promote an active economy in the city, better still in the region, it needs to establish transparent and 21st Century collaborative and cooperative arrangements with institutions, business, collectives, etc. That will require a paradigm shift.
CLICK HERE To read the comments the Examiner's reporting drew
No comments:
Post a Comment