.
Importantly, the tradition at TOWN HALL is to stretch to these provision's limits and invoke them willy-nilly. There are so many ratepayers and residents who will attest to having 'the provision' recited to them very early on in any discussion where something is being contested. The city's General Manager before the current incumbent, Robert Dobrynszki, was an expert and would do so at the drop of a hat – and he was word perfect too.
These provisions have not only been 'mastered' at TOWN HALL they are seemingly endorsed by the current Minister for Local Government, Peter Gutwein, who is currently on an adventure of his very own conducting a 'Claytons review of Local Govt' oversighted by LEGAT – committed as this organisation is to maintaining the 'status quo'.
If one asks a question, even an apparently innocuous question, chances are you'll get a 'right royal bureaucratic runaround' plus every kind of obfuscation recorded in the annals of ASIO, CIA, KGB, MI5, et al.
At TOWN HALL 'accountability and transparency is discretionary' and if you want to test that idea try asking a question of either the Mayor and (now) Councillors – and the GM even. If what you need to know is the time of day you'll get a list of flaws in your questioning – just as well the TOWN CLOCK is just out the window. However, rumour has it that it's time has been "adjusted to meet current circumstances" in accord with 'house policy'. Otherwise, you might be told that investigations will be made to determine the matter and matters outstanding and that you will be advised in due course, or in the fullness of time, or in three something-or-others – weeks, months, years, whenever it is that you likely to have given up.
If you ask the cost of some work you watched being carried out you are very likely to be told "there was no cost given that there was an excess in the budget". It's true, it happen, and to me and strangely enough it urns out that the particular project ran several $millions OVER BUDGET – it happened to me and its all on Council records ... no shame at all being experienced.
If you ask for a document that, reportedly is a 'cultural assessment of the community you are a part of' See [1] .. [2] .. [3], you will get what's called in the business 'the bureaucratic bums rush'. This is SECTIONS 62 & 65 in action. However, what's most astounding, given that there must not be much worth hiding, is the Mayor's inability/unwillingness to intervene to ensure 'transparency and accountability' is delivered upon. And all this is out there in the plain light of day and you really do have to wonder.
Perhaps it is as Aireen Pontillo says “Truth be told, are you ready to defend yourself?” and somewhere, someone else said something like 'a lie' being something that screams at the light. Maybe this explains something?
If you attend Council meetings as a 'Concerned Citizen' as Basil Fitch ...[1] ...[2]...[3] has done 'sort of exefficio' for the past four years, and more regularly than some of the then Aldermen, and your opportunities to ask questions are procedurally constrained and serially plus surreally shut down, you learn a thing or two. However, Basil, who by-the-way is 82 today, knows more about the Local Govt Act 1993 and its machinations than 'the Minister' quite probably. In any event he navigates quite well in that environment. That does not mean he gets answers, rather the contrary, but he is proof-positive of the obfuscation that is dealt out at TOWN HALL.
You'd think that an ex-Alderman with his experience, knowledge and astuteness would be treated with some respect, but no. There are even those who regard him as a "boring old man with too much time on his hands" the very same ones that would be, say as some 'politically correct youngster', "would be all over you like a rash at a save-the-whales picnic" for such an outrageous, insulting and uncouth characterisation relative to gender, sexuality, relative youth even.... but there we go.
Below, there is a set of questions submitted by Mr Fitch that have been ignored and quite probably are awaiting SECTION 62 treatment in the GM's office. As the concerns of the citizenry grows, as do the numbers of concerns, as do the seriousness of their concerns, TOWN HALL's excesses needs to be curbed.
Functionaries and Councillors alike need to 'open up' or face the consequence and risk being 'shut down'.
There is little doubt that a 'proper external independent enquiry' would find more than enough to justify the appointment of a commissioner in order to get accountability, transparency and good governance going in Launceston. Thinking about Huon and Glenorchy Councils you'd have to think dismissal must be right up there as a viable option.
When a Councillor gets fobbed off with a response to a question about an audit following a missing significant artwork from the QVMAG's collections alarm bells ring – it especially does given the subjective confidentiality and the cover it provides. It is even more worrying when 'the operational wing' invokes 'heaven and hell' to overturn Council policy determination.
Likewise, alarms should be ringing much louder still when a staffer's apparent impropriety is reported in the press as being dealt with internally. The in-house subjectivity here should be the cause of alarm.
The notion that 'the Council's elected 12' has abdicated, or have been effectively sidelined, more than worryingly gains credibility by the day. The notion that Council's management has lost control of its budget is reinforced by the day and not mitigated in any way the 'commercial-in-confidence' assertions made at the very sniff of 'accountability' being looked for.
The fact that the City of Launceston maintains a team of 'spin doctors' to 'keep the punters informed', appropriately informed, is hardly reassuring.
The speculations that Council, at the expense of local businesses, employs consultants to reinforce in-house advice and aspirations, and at significant expense, rather than necessarily independent, or community advice, it too is worrying.
The fact Council maintains the largest Local Govt. budget in Tasmania, plus an ever enlarging bureaucracy with over 580 employees – with 1 for 50 residents approx – altogether this is worrying. With so much invested in maintaining the status quo, and maintaining numbers, this is very worrying.
The fact that currently the prospect of 'fees and charges escalating' in order to maintain the status quo, and that the sums are being done behind closed doors and in the dark, this too is more than worrying.
All in all it seems quite clear that there are makings for a thorough 'independent enquiry' or has been used elsewhere, a 'citizen's jury/assembly'. One wonder what needs to happen to spark such a thing.
Ray Norman
Researcher
Trevallyn
NB Below, questions submitted to Council for inclusion in the next Council
meeting's agenda as QUESTIONS ON NOTICE
―
Please acknowledge and confirm receipt of this correspondence
NOT DONE
From: LAUNCESTON-PR <launcestonpr@bigpond.com>
Date: Wednesday, 13 March 2019 at 5:21 pm
To: Mayor <mayor@launceston.tas.gov.au>
Cc: Michael Stretton <Michael.Stretton@launceston.tas.gov.au>
Subject: QUESTIONS ON NOTICE TO COUNCIL
Mayor Albert van Zetten and Councillors,
We ask the following questions in order that Council can clarify the ambiguity that is beginning to reveal itself in the press and media releases emanating out of UTas in regard to Launceston’s City Deal and Infrastructure Australia’s confirmed/unconfirmed funding commitments to the city. Your leadership in regard to these matters would be appreciated by your constituency who are trying to divine the reality of the circumstances they currently face now and into the near future.
- Will Council please reveal the true and irrefutable facts in regard to Infrastructure Australia’s commitment to provide $150 Million towards UTas’s proposed relocation to Inveresk under the guise of UTas’s Northern Transformation?
- Given that there is any such a commitment when was it announced by Infrastructure Australia and how secure might the commitment be regarded as being?
- Is it the case that Infrastructure Australia itself, and alone, determines commitments exceeding $100 Million?
- Is it the case, as has been suggested, that Infrastructure Australia may not consider UTas’s Northern Transformation as appropriate infrastructure to be funded from within its budget and in accord with its priorities?
- Has the Prime Minister made any firm and secure forward commitments in regard to ‘City Deal funding’ for Launceston in recent days/weeks?
- Given Prof Adams’ reported understanding in the press that UTas has secured Infrastructure Australia’s $150 Million commitment towards UTas’s Northern Transformation planning, does this ‘understanding’ have any prospect of having real and reliable standing in the case of any possible outcome in the upcoming Federal election?
- Has Council estimated and quantified the ancillary infrastructure imposts that are likely to flow from UTas being able to realise its ‘staged development’ under its projected Northern Transformation aspirations – short and long term?
- Given that UTas is able to proceed with its Northern Transformation, by whatever means, has Council considered any planning constraints that it will impose upon the developments to mitigate against spiralling costs, given that UTas is a non-ratepaying ‘service soak’?
- In regard to ‘City Heart developments’, currently what are the unplanned cost overruns attributable to the projects on a project by project basis?
- What are the consequences to ratepayers flowing from these overruns and what mitigation is under ‘active consideration’ to alleviate any potential fiscal stress upon ratepayers?
- What are the major impediments to a positive future outlook flowing from the City Heart developments that constituents have identified and consequently what ‘community engagement activities’ is Council, and are Councillors, actively promoting and participating in to address the issues being identified?
We look forward with interest to Council addressing these issues and the information that Council has offer as a consequence of these questions being placed on the agenda.
Your faithfully,
Basil Fitch
For and on behalf of a network of concerned citizens of the Launceston Municipality
Please acknowledge receipt of this communication
No comments:
Post a Comment