Launceston Council Civic Square $20K?, $40K?, $50K? Shock Stuff Up

28/5/2018

Who knows just how much this dumb stuffup in Civic Square is going to cost ratepayers – indeed what has it already cost them. On the face of it whatever the costs are it will not be peanuts given that there are:

• Costs involved in original and inappropriate positioning this Stephen Walker Sculpture "Tasmanian Tableau" and they will be substantial and they have come to nothing;
• Costs involved in deinstalling the work in preparation for reinstallation and they will be substantial;
• Costs involved in the reinstallation of the 'tableau' in accord with the artists/author's 'moral rights' and they will be substantial;
• The legal costs involved in seeking clarification of the artist/author's moral rights and that will be anybody's guess in regard to what those costs will be; and
• Then there are the public relations and travel costs involved in negotiating an appropriate outcome with the artist's family,  the Intellectual Property agents, etc.

Given that Council will not have anticipated the need to insure against this kind of outcome it seems that with a shrug of the shoulders these monies will most likely be found in the budget 'somewhere'. As sure a night follows day it will be the ratepayers who will be footing the bill either via their rate demands OR forgoing services elsewhere in the council's budget.

It is the role of the general manager guarantees to provide "expert advice" to aldermen in their deliberations and decision making. By what has been exposed by this outcome, the question hanging in the air is what advice was provided by whom to whom. Then again it seems the aldermen have not sought independent advice to verify their approval processes in this case – and as likely as not, none other either.

A meaningful community consultation process might well have alerted the decision makers, operational and governance, that there were risks to be navigated – but that didn't happen.

One alderman speaking off the record claimed not to know about this kind of copyright cum moral rights provision but that kind of defence is feeble to say the least. It is a bit like claiming not to know what larceny means.

What is required here is a public apology to the artist's family, the arts community and the residents and ratepayers of Launceston for both the reflected ignominy and the losses they'll surely suffer.  If justice is to be done after that, the aldermen should consider their position and possibly look for ways for the costs met from within the budget provided for aldermanic expenses.

Sadly this whole affair reflect badly on Launceston's aldermen as it is their representational role to ensure that this kind of outcome does not happen. It is time for a major rethink and a reality check!