Aurora Stadium
I WONDER how many Launcestonians are aware that our footy ground on Invermay Road on Invermay Round has an official title that goes back to 1901?
That name still stands today it is York Park, named after the Duke of York after his visit to Tasmania.
Are we disrespecting his memory by using an alternate commercial name and ignoring the history of this site?
My understanding is that as he was the Duke of York and Cornwall, that was the reason for Cornwall Square being so named.
We have now denigrated Cornwall Square by selling off part of it for 30 pieces of silver, or maybe a bit more, we’ve done the same to York Park, this is the second time as it’s now Aurora Stadium.
Perhaps our fly-in, fly-out general manager who appears to have more power than our aldermen would consider selling off the Town Hall, Albert Hall and the Cenotaph and leasing them back?
Ron Baines, Kings Meadows.
This is totally outrageous!!! The three men in the bottom picture exhibit hubris beyond belief. In a darkened backroom they stitch up a deal and yet again way way away from the glaring lights of public scrutiny they stitch up what looks like a sweetheart deal. The term “commercial in confidence” is a blanket to cover up something that’s not right.
ReplyDeleteThe university gets public land free and the ratepayer, as likely as not, gets it in the neck yet again with secret deal. Secrecy leaves far too much room for uncomfortable speculation. Just look at it, there is every chance that the uni is not paying a brass razzo for the naming rights for York Park. That’s a story yet to be told.
In celebrating what a council apologist calls “a massive set of achievements for local businesses at the business excellence awards” it does have to asked who has achieved what? The aldermen, well some at least, were distrusted and kept in the dark only to find out what the general manager had been doing out of their sight and earshot.
On Facebook our council apologist says that ” voters vote for people to set the strategic direction of the city. Those bigger picture strategies are set through expert consultation and endorsement by aldermen. From there, the staff at council are the people on the ground with all the information to make things happen.” He maybe right but it is the aldermen who make the decisions and it is hubristic indeed to, on the evidence, exclude the electors representatives from the decision until well after the council agenda has been set.
Anywhere else this would be called out a bullying but no not a bit of it in Launceston where it seems that topis is whispered about quite a bit. Apparently the Mayor was out there talking about “the code of conduct” and under the circumstances that might be called bullying.
The Facebook apologist for the council says “A few weeks ago I was in a meeting with the Hawks, stadium management, Cityprom, Tourism Northern Tasmania, City of Launceston management, Launceston Chamber of Commerce, Launceston Airport and local media outlets to plan out initiatives over the next footy season and beyond” demonstrates that he’s an insider with a conflict of interest and that’s what you need when if you’re operating on the shady side of the street.
Sir,
ReplyDeleteTasmanians need to read the Local Govt Act – http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/tas/consol_act/lga1993182/ – very carefully. When and if they do, and they also consider what goes on in their council they will discover that their so-called representatives, if they have the inclination, hardly have an opportunity at all to “represent” them.
The General Manager, under SECTION 65 of the Act, has to guarantee that councilors or aldermen will be making their determinations on expert advice. That is, advice “given by a person who has the qualifications or experience necessary to give such advice, information or recommendation” OR on the “advice of a qualified person without considering such advice unless the general manager certifies in writing that such advice was obtained and taken into account in providing general advice to the council or council committee.”
Has anyone heard a councillor or alderman challenge such an assertion made by a general manager? If so it would be a rarity and as likely as not they would be “dealt with later.” In any event what evidence might there be that a General Manager on specific occasions has the wherewithal to make such a guarantee? Is the default position a case of he or she ‘deeming’ that it is so and therefore for all intensions purposes, it is?
On the evidence, at Launceston Council, it appears as if in the name change for York Park the aldermen were not given an opportunity to consider any such advice as the outcomes of the council’s deliberations were announced in the press well before the aldermen had an opportunity to discuss or question ‘the decision’ in open council.
If the aldermen collectively appear to have been sidelined it is probably because they have been and trumped by the General Manager and apparently on his own cognisance. So much for the value of SECTION 65 of the Local Govt. Act.
Whilst the aldermen didn’t offer up a squeak in resistance, ex-alderman Basil Fitch, reportedly questioned the General Manager persistently in regard to the decision making process on display. It is reported that he ask three times about how the decision was made and who made it.
Twice the General Manager avoided answering by responding with bureaucratic obfuscation but on the third he openly admitted to making the decision, presumably by himself, and to have done so under SECTION 62 of the Act. and by various reports by reciting the provision – “The general manager may do anything necessary or convenient to perform his or her functions under this or any other Act.”
Somehow this does not pass the so-called “Pub Test” and you would think that someone would, even should, challenge such an obvious misinterpretation, or possibly a self-serving interpretation, of the Act. It seems not! Not even the Minister or the Director of Local Govt. seems to be moved by such shenanigans despite the obvious failures on display.
In the scheme of thing this incident might seem trivial but it does raise uncomfortable issues in regard to the meaning and purpose of the Local Govt. Act and the levels of protection and representation it affords constituents.
Where have we come to and what does this incident reveal? Is it an example of what goes on unseen normally? How widespread is this sort of thing? Given all that’s going wrong with Local Govt. can the Minister, or even the whole of government, look the other way while this stuff gets played out at taxpayers expense?