There is a perception that the proposed 'cultural unit' is intended to be a part of Launceston Council's operational structure. Likewise, that perception is underpinned by a notion that there is no imperative on the part of Council's operational wing to actively engage with, take advice from or initiate collaborative/cooperative concept development with the 'cultural communities' that are the subject of the proposed unit's work – albeit that this ambiguous currently.
As a 'cost centre' the unit is bound to be a drain at some level on Council's recurrent budget. The extent to which it may be is open to speculation but it is clear that Launceston's aldermen have not actively considered the fiscal implications of putting such a unit in place – at least not yet. This being the case the unit's future must be regarded as being 'politically vulnerable'.
Given that there has been no clear and unambiguous 'purpose' for the proposed unit set out so far it follows that the proposal is unsupported by a set of objectives. Likewise, the rationales in support of the initiative are unclear and far from being anything that might be considered 'unambiguous'.
That this is the outcome of a consultancy it is hard to imagine that the city's aldermen have serious interrogated the proposal and the veracity of the apparent assumptions informing the imitative. In fact, allowing this proposal to proceed to its current stage of development without serious investigation around the table in open Council raises a series of uncomfortable questions – question that deserve further consideration.
The summary pretty much tells it how it is and that there is a perception that the proposed 'cultural unit' is intended to be a part of Launceston Council's operational structure is on the money. Likewise, that “perception is underpinned by a notion that there is no imperative on the part of Council's operational wing to actively engage with, take advice from or initiate collaborative/cooperative concept development with the 'cultural communities' that are the subject of the proposed unit's work – albeit that this ambiguous currently” is perhaps challengeable. There may be an attempt made NOW to engage with the community but the signs are faint and the intended implementation date is looming.
ReplyDeleteThere will, as sure anything, be a 'cost centre' and like all cost centres it “is bound to be a drain at some level on Council's recurrent budget” and ratepayers will not be congratulating any of that unless a rabbit or two can be pulled out of the hat somewhere.
The extent to which it will be a contentious drain on the budget is, as said in the summary, “is open to speculation but it is clear that Launceston's aldermen have not actively considered the fiscal implications of putting such a unit in place” However, the proposed unit's future must be seen as being a matter of politics and this year is an election year for councils. The question the aldermen need to ask themselves, is this proposition as warm and fuzzy enough to get them out of trouble?
The observation that there is “no clear and unambiguous 'purpose' for the proposed unit set out” is spot on. It follows that the proposal sees no need set out objectives because you just cannot have them if there is no purpose. So what are the rationales that support this seemingly underdone initiative? Anything that might be thought about can only be ambiguous speculations.
If this outcome comes out of a consultancy it is hard to imagine that Launceston’s aldermen have seriously thought about this proposal. Are they just going along with it because it sounds good? The truth of the assumptions being relied upon seem to be very dodgy.
Allowing this proposal to go ahead would be more than careless. If it is to go anywhere “without serious investigation around the table in open Council”, well that would simply demonstrate that these 12 people are prepared to look the other way while possibly shonky stuff is going on out the back. Enough said!