SUDDENLY THERE ARE LOSSES AND ITS AN ELECTION

Suddenly there are losses to to be explained away at election time in the Launceston municipality and who would have thunk such a thing was possible. Who would have thunk it!

It gets 'interestinger and interestinger' when at the end of the fiscal year the City of Launceston turned in a $3.5Million plus surplus.

AND THEN, in just four months here we are with a $3.5Million operational loss, and growing potentially, after the Auditor General had checked the books. As they say in backrooms all over the place, "how the hell did that happen?" Shonky bookkeeping? AND, how could it possibly happen at election time?

Operationally, that's approximately $7Million turnaround in four months which in anyone's book is, spectacular. when the city's budget is somewhere in the order of $107Million. 

So, the cumulative 'loss looks like it is thus far', something in the order of 7% of the current operational budget.  BUT, there is unfinished civic works all over the place – Civic Square, The Mall, Riverbend Park, Utas and possibly more still.

On TV on Friday evening's news, Mayor van Zetten acknowledged the loss, and given the sensitivity of the timing, he was 'smoothing over' the situation with the construction work for Riverbend Park working away behind him sucking up the dollars. Beforehand in the Examiner, Ald. Hugh McKenzie was talking up, and trying to hose down community concerns, saying "budget overruns are “unfortunate”, but sometimes unavoidable, ... [when he moved] unanimous motion to see the council adjust its budget" [Link]. 

Before the current Council's last meeting before a new Council is installed the General Manager, Michael Stretton, was in the press hosing down 'community concerns' saying that the' "City of Launceston council’s long term financial plan is “stable”, despite a number of budget changes proposed in the council’s agenda."[Link]

If all this was to be in contention, and without there being a council election in it's final throes, it would be concerning enough. If nothing changes Launceston's ratepayers appear to have more than ever to worry about as 'their council' – governance-wise and operationally – is appearing to be increasingly fiscally flamboyant – and irrationally so. Something that can be entertained if you are able, as council mostly is, to conscript whatever monies it desires – and for whatever purpose too apparently.

Some weeks ago, Geoff Smedly put up the proposition in the Examiner's Letters, paraphrased,  that 'Launceston needed an inquiry as much as, or even more than, an election'. Anyone closely scrutinising the city's 'municipal' affairs'  would  most likely agree. 

As time unfolds, and more and more money is spent/committed, as time unfolds and a place's elective representative are more and more likely to be  representing personal interests and aspirations than much else. As time unfolds aldermen should be required to be functionally accountable and it would seem that the likes of Geoff Smedley are right on the money in suggesting that 'Launceston needs an inquiry' much more than election to flush away self serving representatives disinclined to represent the interests of their constituents.

Put away the smoke bombs, stop flashing the mirrors and spare us the clap trap and humbug ,just bring on the inquiry ASAP!