Launceston's once GM now CEO Michael Stratton rounds out and smooths over 2019

CLICK HERE TO GO TO THE EXAMINER STORY

When it comes to rounding a year out if you have, as they say, 'skin in the game', it is best that you acknowledge the political filters that are on the lens in THE EXAMINER. 

As well, with this contribution in THE EXAMINER one has had to navigate it's passage through a tortuous labyrinthine pathway through smoke and mirrors as well. 

The 'performance review' is so, so dependent, and so obviously, on the GM/CEO's briefings that inform the THE EXAMINER on every occasion. These briefings are generously funded by ratepayers who grant him his generous budget allocation to allow him to pay whoever to make him look 'shipshape and shiny'. 

The other thing that needs to be said is that the Mayor and Councillors are 'voiceless' and one can only assume that this is because they wouldn't want to be seen to be saying anything while trying to keep a straight face. 

Yes, the Mayor is in 'the pictures' but he is, and his fellow Councillors too, are voiceless and inaudible in this 'performance review' – slanted as it is. This must tell us something about the status of their abdication as 'representatives'.

It is also noteworthy that 'THE EXAMINER' will typically avoid anything resembling an 'incisive critical review' relevant to the City of Launceston. Why might this be?

On the other hand, 'THE MERCURY' is much more likely to take the discourse right to a council's, or an officer's,  doorstep –LINK. 

For instance, recently they reported that Kingbrough's GM is paid more than 'The Premier' and its also true for Launceston's GM/CEO – but do not expect to glean that kind of information in THE EXAMINER anytime soon.

Generally the review in dot point can be characterised in a few words:

• Restructure ....Well this is an example of bureaucratic overreach.
• Invermay Traffic master plan  ... This is just bureaucratic ineptitude.
• Riverbend Park opening ... This is an exemplar of uncontrolled budgetary over runs ... BIG TIME and reportedly in the multiple $Millions.
• Shopping in the City report ... This is diversionary smoke and mirrors at work.
• Building heights report ... This is inept planning that got everyone at Town Hall in trouble.
• Tomorrow Together  ... This is just a cynical and disingenuous Machiavellian manoeuvre
• Free parking ... This is just another example of cynical posturing all round
• Climate emergency ... This is just virtue signalling nothing nothing more, no\thing less
• Macquarie House opening ... This turns out to be a cynical political  manoeuvre
• QVMAG audit  ... Yet another cynical and disingenuous manoeuvre to detract attention albeit that there is/was some need but not as is being executed
• Federal election ... More ill considered parish pump politics
• Australia Day ... This is cynical virtue signalling
• Gorge Hotel ... This is an exemplar of very poor planning and administration. 
• Consultancy data ... This is a cynical promise that there is no intention to fulfil
• Tourism and events ... This is more disingenuous clap trap
• IN 2020 ... More smoke and mirrors

Against this there is a litany  of administrative failures along with every opportunity being taken to avoid meaningful accountability. See SECTION 62 of the Local Govt Act 1993. 

Moreover, when a Councillor asks for information in an open Council meeting undertakings are given but not delivered upon – the question isn't even recorded. In various ways this kind of thing has become 'signature behaviour' at Town Hall.

HOWEVER read the 'year in review', dredge your memories and apply the credibility test. Around the Launceston Concerned Citizens' network BULLshit alarms are ringing loudly. 

Here is your link

CULTURE IN LAUNCESTON AND THE 'STRETTON PLAN'

Thinking people in the QVMAG's Community of Ownership & Interest (COI) are deservedly in utter dismay in regard to council’s apparent abdication of the trust invested in you as the default governors/trustees of the QVMAG and its collections.

It is also a matter of dismay that in the Council and Councillors in their collective capacities as the default trustees, on the available evidence, you have collectively:

• Abdicated their governance role, function and obligations relative to the QVMAG as a public cultural institution and community cultural asset;
 • Allowed the council's operational  management to be essentially self-referential, self-assessing and by-and-large self-serving;

• Allowed the operation to function without critical oversight – councillor's in particular – and critical review thus rendering it 'functionally unaccountable' to those who fund its operation and support its recurrent budget and collection building – the city’s ratepayers, the State’s taxpayers, donors and sponsors, et al.

 • Allowed the operation to function without meeting credible reporting standards to its governance – the Councillors –thus opening it to unwelcome speculation;

• Allowed the operation to function largely without being exposed to independent external expertise and peer review thus limiting its professional standing; 

• Allowed council management to commission expert advice at significant expense to ratepayers and consequently disallowed any kind of public access to it, again opening the operation up to unwelcome speculation and functionally reinforcing its opacity;

• Allowed the operation’s management to blur and amalgamate the functions of 'governance and management' thus allowing for rudderlessness and discretionary accountability that places both the institution and its collections at risk;

 • Allowed the operation’s management to determine self-serving strategic priorities – the function of governance not management – in isolation and insulated from meaningful criticism and critique;

• Supported the notion that as a council that as the QVMAG’s governors – representing the institutions constituency –  the notion of 'conscripting funds from ratepayers', and without open disclosure, for the recurrent cost of the QVMAG operation is viable, ethical and morally sustainable. Moreover, that 'Council' does so without providing access to credible fiscal reporting or indeed any kind of meaningful access to critical review. This is fundamentally untenable;

• Allowed the operation to dispose of assets without credible public or appropriate oversight. And  Council/Trustees also support an accession and deaccession policy that is far removed from ‘best practice’. This too is fundamentally untenable;

• Allowed the operation to acquire collection material, and/or dispose of it, without appropriate independent oversighting or indeed any meaningful reference to them as ‘trustees’ – trust invested in them by ratepayers, taxpayers, donors, et al; and

• Allowed the operation to function without credible and measurable performance indicators.

Moreover, against this concerning background there are reports that ‘Council’ is entertaining a notion that the State Govt. might take over, or fully fund, the operation thus saving ‘Council’ the obligations that as 'Trustees' they have collectively renounced already essentially.

It would be extraordinary for any funding institution to fund an institution such as the QVMAG – government, corporate or other – given the operation’s:

• Record of discretionary accountability; and
• That the operation has – reportedly and recently –  been essentially been restructured to maintain and basically to  reinforce the status quo.

The notion that the QVMAGI is to be "overhauled under the [Stretton Plan], with Mr Stretton saying the council is too small to cater for the asset's future. ... The future success of both of these vitally important institutions may require new arrangements which cannot necessarily be provided by remaining part of a local government organisation," and he said all this in Mid-August. It turns out that this is nothing more than hollow rhetoric. There has been nothing canvassed in Council, no meaningful engagement with the QVMAG's COI, not the slightest hint of 'community engagement'.

It is particularly disturbing that the city’s recent AGM, the Councillors/Trustees collectively, had nothing to say about future plans and aspirations for the QVMAG as an operation. Not a mention, let alone open up any kind of critical discourse relevant to the operation and its relevance – socially, culturally and economically. 

You would be aware that a ‘network of concerned citizens’ has facilitated a review of the QVMAG’s Annual Report – See https://qvmag20182019.blogspot.com/

. 

That as the operation’s ‘governing body’ as Trustees, Council/Councillors THEY not openly responded to either the QVMAG’s Annual Report or the ‘citizen’s review’ is a clear and unambiguous demonstration of their disinterest and abdication. They must act immediately to turn this institution into a 21st C operation that is trustworthy and accountable.

All this said, it needs to be acknowledged that arguably the QVMAG is one of the region’s most significant cultural assets – especially so in regard to cultural tourism. The support the institution receives from Launceston’s ratepayers is justifiable just so long as the operation delivers commensurate dividends – social, cultural & economic – and it is truly accountable to its constituency in a 21^st C context. Indeed, given appropriate governance, such ongoing support would be justifiable.

The somewhat arrogant silence coming from the QVMAG’s ‘Trustees’, City of Launceston Councillors must not be overlooked. They must be held to account and required to act immediately as they have abused the trust invested in them. Not soon, not when this or that has been done, right now please, the time for dilly dallying about is well and truly over! 

It is time for the QVMAG's Community of Ownership & Interest (COI) to be engaged with rather the background of ongoing sidelining that the 'STRETTON PLAN ' has put in place.

CLICK HERE TO ACCESS –  https://qvmag20182019.blogspot.com/

CLICK HERE TO ACCESsS THE STRETTON PLAN DISCUSSED  https://lcc63.blogspot.com/p/v-behaviorurldefaultvmlo_20.html

City of Launceston in Review 2019 and THE STRETTON PLAN

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

DELEGATIONS OF AUTHORITY AT YOUR COUNCIL

All too often the ‘delegated authorities’ embedded in, invested in, local councils are overlooked and trivialised. Also, what isn’t understood, possibly misunderstood, is the power granted to the holders of a delegated authority. Indeed,  how these powers can be, have been used, overtly and subliminally, towards all manner of ends is, seemingly, never examined. 

Essentially, local governance is entirely about ‘placemaking and placescaping’ and thus it impacts upon a community’s, and the individuals within it, well-being and self-worth. By extension, the ’trust’ invested in people with 'delegated authorities' is no trivial matter. 

In so many ways the power and authority these people hold under the Local Govt Act 1993 in Tasmania touches upon so many aspects of a community’s, and an individual’s, well being. The impact is enormous.

If and when these ‘authorities’ become bureaucrat playthings it is concerning. When they are granted willy nilly it is more than concerning. The cavalier approach to the investment of these powers is more than concerning taking into account all that they represent. 

How we govern places and thus create ‘cultural landscapes’ is something that cannot be overlooked. It is that which gives people their 'placedness'  – their sense of place, their belongingness.

Moreover, each and every person who has an interest in, a sense of ownership in, an attachment to, a place belongs to it as much as they might in various ways see it as belonging to them. 

Culture makes places and places make cultures. So again, those with whom we invest various authorities have been granted rights to do with shaping/making place that most importantly bring with them ‘obligations’ – onerous obligations. 

'Places' have Communities of Ownership and Interest (COI). A COI as a proposition, is an all-inclusive collective/community of people, individuals and groups, who in any way have multi-layered relationships with a place or cultural landscape and/or the operation of an institution, organisation or establishment – typically they are a network of networks.

A great deal of trust is invested in local governance and the ‘mechanisms’ devised to shape and make ‘place’. .

Against this background so many questions arise to do with 'delegated authorities' that beg for answers. Like, are the incumbents up to the tasks set them, or even up for it? How do they get/win their authority? To whom are they accountable? How can a reasonable citizen discover their identity and verify their authority? How might a reasonable person challenge a misused authority or a delinquent incumbent? And more still!

If you do not know who has what delegated authorities are in place in ‘your place’, what incumbents they bring to it, how they got it, or who is accountable to who, there can be no transparency – and no meaningful accountability. 

Anytime you ponder such things ask your local government for a register of delegated authorities. In Tasmania Councils are required to maintain such a register and make it available in a timely way. 

If you are unsatisfied with what you discover do not leave a stone unturned until you are satisfied. You have rights and you too have obligations in regard to 'placemaking and placescaping'. 

CALL YOU COUNCIL TODAY

BE INFORMED

11 Questions to The City of Launceston

Against the background of information currently circulating on social media and the personal representations made to the ‘Concerned Citizens Network’ relative to the reported removal of mature trees at Churchill Park a number of questions arise. In particular the questions are relative to Council’s reported declaration of a Climate Change Emergency.

• Does Council’s determination of a Climate Emergency have any currency at all within Council operations or any practical implications in regard to the realisation of Council works carried out on the ground within its jurisdiction?

• Does Council’s determination of a Climate Emergency have any veracity as a City of Launceston policy?

• Beyond the rhetoric, does Council’s determination of a Climate Emergency have any strategic importance going forward and if so where can the city’s citizenry find documentation of this policy to guide them in their strategic decision making?

• Who within Council has delegated authority backed by the relevant expertise to determine a course of action in the realisation Council development relative to declared policies? Also, what experience and expertise do they have in order to qualify them to make appropriate determinations in this area of Council’s operations?

• In regard to the Churchill Park carpark development who authorised the removal the removal of trees to facilitate the development? Given that a decision was made on what basis was it made?

• Does Council have an up to date register of significant trees and groupings of trees and associated vegetation that documents the significance of the tree, trees and/or the placescaping and cultural landscaping within which they exist? If so where can the city’s citizens and others gain access to the register?  If there is no such register why does it not exist?

• Is the significance of the mature trees removed at Churchill Park acknowledged in any way and especially so in regard to the role they play in environmentally securing the now defunct landfill site?

• How many trees have actually been removed and how many more in the area are intended to be removed for any reason? Indeed, what trees elsewhere are currently under threat of removal?

• What mitigation is intended to overcome the consequences of the removal of the trees that have removed and upon what expert advice is Council relying in regard to such mitigation?

• Is this an instance where SECTION 62 of the Tasmanian Local Government Act 1993 when the General Manager will determine a way forward or is it an instance where Council will decide the matter and/or reinforce its policy determination in open Council?

• What is the estimated cost to ratepayers in regard to resolving this matter and when will it be provided to ratepayers in order that interested parties can be informed relative to their planning in like situations?

Ray Norman

For and on behalf of LCCN

REVEIW OF QVMAG ANNUAL REPORT 2018-19

FOREWORD

The QVMAG's 2018-19 Annual Report should be seen as one of the most concerning documents to come out of Launceston's governance in recent times. Read critically, the evidence for functional unaccountability and the opacity of both governance and management is in plain view for anyone who wants to see it.

Moreover, the General Manager's statement in the press ... "Under the reform, the council is also looking at how to transition the Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery and UTAS Stadium to a more contemporary and appropriate governance model." is a demonstration of his use of SECTION 62 of Local Government Act 1993. This is essentially an 'emergency power'  ascribed to his position and one that has been serially, and somewhat surreally, misused by recent incumbents. 

Here there is a good case for the proposition that the elected representatives, the QVMAG's Trustees by default, have stood haplessly by in disregard for their duty of care and the trust invested in them in their 'governance role'. Who has investments in the institution? Well: 

• Launceston's ratepayers; 

• Tasmania's taxpayers; 

• National and international donors and sponsors;

• Scholars and researchers; and 

• The owners of cultural and intellectual property held in QVMAG collections. 

That all this involves the expenditure of something in the order of $7Million of public monies, is non-trivial – and this is further compounded by the fact that there is an estimated $230Million plus in public assets at risk.

There must be change and 'reportedly' over some years external advice has been sought, and paid for – and by all accounts these 'expert consultants' have been paid quite handsomely. This 2018/19 report raises concerns that have remained unaddressed for far too long.

The status quo must not be allowed to persist. The current state of affairs must be brought to an end and with some urgency.

To read the review GO2
https://qvmag20182019.blogspot.com/