Launceston rounds the year off ingloriously. Town Hall has been reconfiguring 'the operation' and for the most part doing its very best to blur the differences between governance and management. This is the stuff public public administration 101 yet it seems to be not well understood at Town Hall.
Or, perhaps it has been understood that opportunity was knocking and it was time to harvest the 'benefits' laying about waiting to be exploited. All this, and sadly, is an open question.
On the face of it, the City's Councillors, the elected representatives, have dropped the ball and they are napping on the sidelines while the 'functionaries' persuade them that they have no real authority anyway. Or, they have been sidelined and sadly, yet again all this is an open question. They seem happy enough just so long as their stipends are paid on time.
In fact the functionaries are by-and-large operating on their own terms, in their own way and anytime the mood takes them. SECTION 62 of the Act affords the GM extraordinary powers that on careful reading he and his predecessors have misused. If we need evidence for this, always remembering that it is 'the holiday season', we might well look at the so-called 'organisational realignment' that has concentrated 'authority' where management wants it – and apparently in camera. Likewise, there is a disinclination to include the 'elected representatives' in the equation and the development of the strategies being implemented.
All this represents a total misunderstanding of the relative functions of 'management and governance'. Management does not determine policy and strategic directions rather it is managements role to implement them. Management has absolutely no role in determining policy and strategies – except perhaps to undertaking research and reporting outcomes to governance.
Town Hall's management is, on the evidence busily overstepping the mark.
From the scant information coming out of Town Hall's 'media machine' operating with overly generous budget provided by ratepayers, we are beginning to see hints of who the winners and losers are. Apparently the GM/CEO/whoever has providerd something like $480K for this sort of thing in the budget – and the good Councillors looked the other way by-and-large. As always the ratepayers will be footing the bill, and big time.
Tasmania has drained the 'gene pool' in regard to credible candidates to fill the seats on its 29 Councils. Disturbingly, this also seems to apply to 'capable functionaries' able and willing to deliver a public service in Local Govt.
This is a serious concern and worryingly when it comes to empowering 'officers' with 'delegated authorities'. For context click here.
There is much work to be done in regard to transparency and accountability. On the evidence, the City of Launceston apparently has regarded the Act relevant to providing access to the 'Register of delegated Authorities' as elastic and something that can be done at the GM's convenience.
Alternatively, Hobart's council is setting the pace and thus far has set the 'GOLD STANDARD'. Arguably there is a way to go yet but if you haven't set out on the journey you will not reach the destination.
As for Launceston's so-called 'Organisational Realignment' it turns out that the process is as shonky as – questionable redundancy processes, questionable accountability, questionable transparency and towards entrenching questionable standards.
What is now euphemistically referred to as "THE STRETTON PLAN" will more than likely go down in history as one of the city's most cynical self-serving examples of shonky administration. It has been perpetrated in the dark and largely devised to divert attention away from serial budget over runs and probably much more.
Only an independent enquiry would have any chance of plumbing the depths of malfunction and dodgyness this exercise encapsulates.
Will the Minister countenance anything like this? We'll just have to wait and see.
e
No comments:
Post a Comment