What Is The Value Of An Memorandum Of Understanding Anyway?

CLICK ON IMAGE TO ENLARGE
CLICK HERE TO GO TO THE ORIGINAL

A memorandum (abbrev.: memo) comes from the Latin  verbal phrase memorandum est, the gerundive  form of the verb memoro, "to mention, call to mind, recount, relate", which means "It must be remembered (that)...". 

So, a MoU is therefore a document that helps the memory by recording events or observations or commitments on a topic. Yet, a MoU seems to have an elasticity  of meaning or at least 'commitment'.

If they are so elastic in their meaning you'd have to wonder why institutions create and sign them. If there is a commitment within them to exchange property under certain conditions it be a lawyers picnic if one side want to break the commitment.

The MoU here might well be regarded as decorative but nonetheless an expression of goodwill between Launceston City Council and UTas. It is interesting to read this document seven years on and think about what has happened on the ground.

It would be unfair to say as some have that "nothing of substance has come of it" it is hard to find overt expressions of the MoU. As is the way of things in early days there were projects that were there was a mutually beneficial cooperation between the council and say the School of Architecture. The school's program found opportunities to cooperate and allow students to get hands on designing and making opportunities in the city.

UTas's VC at the time was Professor Daryl Le Grew.  Prof. le Grew is an architect so it is not so surprising that he might put an architects stamp on the MoU. However, he moved on in 2010 and there were also changes at Town Hall. Alderman van Zetten was Mayor and Rod Sweetnam was acting General Manager. Of the signatories Alderman van Zetten and Professor David Rich remain in their post.

So one might well ask, what real value does a MoUs have? And, then one might well ask, given the potential mutual benefits, why come to such arrangements and then largely walk away from them? Are MoUs in fact merely 'window dressing'?

CLICK ON IMAGE TO ENLARGE
CLICK HERE TO GO TO THE ORIGINAL

This particular 2008 MoU may well have been a lever in coming to the "land gift" arrangement under the most recent UTas-LCC MoU. 

Interestingly, there is a level of 'opacity' associated with it. Why might that be? Are there "commercial-in-confidence" issues? If so why so? Given that the land concerned is "public land" what is the need, or driving force, behind keeping this document secret?

The university has put the 2008 MoU up on the UTas website for the world to see but its not on the LCC website. The 2015 MoU is nowhere to be found online. Why is that? What's actually in the 2015 MoU that the Mayor and Aldermen, unanimously apparently, do not want his constituency to know about? If asking this question is a 'beat up' then Launceston City Council will put the 2015 MoU up on the LCC website by March 1 2016!

If that cannot happen for any reason at all then a media release explaining why not would be more than appropriate to counteract the clandestineness that seems to purvey this whole affair.  

If Council is as good as its word ... "we will share information about a decision or direction" in council's "Community Engagement Framework" and "Organisational Values" meeting this commitment should not present a problem.

If there is a problem in regard to posting the 2015 MoU on the website, then in accord with Council's stated policies, Council would be well advised to put that explanation up on its website. That is, until it is possible to share the 2015 MoU with its constituency. 

The Uni Cannot Believe That The Public Just Will Not Believe

CLICK HERE TO GO TO THE STORY

Read this story online and you'll get a whole new take on the world.

When you ask your marketing people to get out there and tell the story you had better hope that know what to do about social media. 

The Professor thinks he can talk his way out of misreading public sentiment and talk people around.

It does not look like its working though.

However, these people have been to a bank at some time in their life looking for money with a real case to put. They know what doesn't add up.

And yes, golly gosh Goergie Burgess, the university's line that people are dumb in Tasmania and they will believe a Professor because he is smart, that line just does not work. Neither does trust us we are the university.

Anyway the comments at the bottom of this story are a lot better reading. And some of them are a lot more entertaining than the story itself. Apparently that's how it goes these days. 

They used to say beware old men with typewriters. Now its beware all sorts of people with computers, university degrees, life experience plus the time and inclination to try and leave the world in a better condition for their children and grandchildren.

It doesn't look like they run up a HEC debt at this uni!

Take the time to read their work and sense the half baked marketing people squirm with their iPHONES on the table beside their caffellattes. It all adds some spice to reading newspapers online! 

Tasmanian Ratepayers Association's Budget Submission Is Now Online

The Tasmanian Ratepayers Association has tendered it Budget Submission [Link] to Launceston City Council yesterday and it makes for interesting reading if are concerned about the city's future.

This Council has a longstanding tradition of setting up a budgetary process designed to deliver more and more of the same PLUS CPI – and very often and then some. This is how the Launceston budget – $1000 million and climbing – has grown into the largest Council budget in Tasmania.

What comes with that is this mindset that 'The Council' is some kind of 'business' set up to churn salaries and benefits and drawing upon the statutory levies it has been authorised to collect. 

As a business model it has a lot going for it in so much as the 'customers' have to pay up or have their assets confiscated. The way this particular operation manifests itself one cannot keep images of Al Capone's operation (outfit?) at bay for all that long. It's a model that Ned Kelly would have preferred to shooting up stage coaches, pubs, etc.

The net result is almost always something like a 'slush fund' where the beneficiaries are not always those for whom the funds were supposedly collected.

It's already been flagged that this budget will be depending on fly-in-money-from-Canberra to grow the pie and feed the overlords in the manner to which they are accustomed, and some – along with some crumbs for the underlings. Think City Heart [LINK] and the speculated eventual tens of millions and the Muddle Headed Ribbon Cutting Syndrome!

All of this will masquerade as credible fiscal management when in fact it is quite the opposite given the consequences of expanding infrastructure in a stable(?) population and a potentially declining economic base.

This Council's misguided use of, and apparently poor understanding – essentially 20th Century understanding – of, Social Media leads it to the belief that whatever it puts out there is accepted and is immediately translatable as permission for whatever.

Indeed Council's use of Social Media is naive all too often and is very often cynically skewed to 21st C critical thinkers and street smart users of Social Media.

Launceston's 'cargo cult follies' persist despite the evidence that in the past this has led to the current situation; where Launceston's ratepayers are paying $300 to $400 per rateable property above the odds; where Council employs about one (1) person for every 60 properties in the municipality; where approximately 50% of Launceston people depend upon Centerlink payments; where approximately 30% of Launceston people live on or below the poverty line; and where youth unemployment/underemployment is endemic – and all this does not stop there.

It is anticipatable that the Council will work overtime to maintain the status quo not because that will serve the city well but because it will maintain, and hopefully grow, the city's administrative empire – plus maintain the salary and benefits churn.

Council's "YourVoiceYourLaunceton" Social Media site is a diversionary strategy designed to divert people from the 'main game' to some periphery diversion less likely to disturb the status quo too much if at all.

Asking people what they would spend on is quite different to asking them for the savings they can see. That would be very unwelcome as it would/could diminish the churn the operatives depend upon.

In the current economic climate, and in the circumstances of shifting economic imperatives, Launceston needs to be looking for innovative 21st Century ways forward, and 21st Century opportunities to change – not ways to hang on to a redundant 19th cum 20th Century management paradigm.

In order to do any of that the city's leadership needs to be challenged, and at every opportunity, to curtail its excesses. It a step that needs to be taken right now.

Send your savings ideas to not only the city's General Manager but also to the Aldermen you know, the press and anybody who will listen to them and pass them on.

If Launceston people do not do this, as they say, "they'll probably cop it in the neck yet again".

Concerned Citizens Network Exposed

Since the February 9 public meeting organised funded and facilitated by a network of Launceston's “concerned citizens” it has become increasingly obvious that various groups, organisations and businesses find it difficult to relate to such a group – notably The Launceston City Council, The Examiner among them. 

There is this 19th cum 20th Century insistence that in order to be “real” such an entity needs to have a President, a Secretary, a Treasure and have a paid up membership –in fact ‘someone’ to congratulate or denigrate and vilify all too often. 

In reality there is nothing at all that is actually new about ‘social networks’ that lack these things. 

While such groupings may not be stand-alone ‘legal entities’, the reality of such networks is well enough understood by say "the business world" given its “Old Boys’ networks” and/or other business oriented informal networks. 

Rather than be hierarchical ‘top down’ groups with compliant memberships such groups/networks in the 21st Century are deliberately organic ‘bottom up’ entities with unranked memberships committed in various degrees to cooperate and collaborate in accord with and towards a shared set of goals.

The network that has come together in Launceston is indeed such a 21st Century network of networks with a convergence of concerns for a place’s – Launceston’s – wellbeing, future development, sustainability, etc. 

In a 21st Century context such networks are increasingly likely to evolve supported by the Internet, Social Media and other Cyber Networks. And, sometimes these networks will be multifaceted alliances that in other contexts might well include elements with possibly conflicting interests yet being in accord otherwise. 

It would be an exaggeration to claim that such networks are entirely due to such 21st Century cultural phenomena. Nonetheless, the claim that they are better facilitated in a 21st context than ever before is increasingly becoming much better understood. 

Indeed the science of the ‘networking phenomena’ is currently better understood in its 21st Century context than has ever been the case up to now. Interestingly, regional networks interface with global networks and visa versa.

In fact, in a 21st Century context we may well find these evolving networks outsourcing some of the functional elements of their ‘alliances’ to either organisations within the network, or even ‘operations’ outside it. 

The alliance of concerned citizens that has come together in Launceston is quite simply an example of a 21st Century citizenry looking at 21st Century issues and using 21st Century strategies and technologies to explore 21st Century opportunities in search of solutions to current and emerging problems and concerns – indeed 21st Century solutions. 

If hierarchical operational structures have difficulties with 21st Century networking, indeed networks of networks, it was ever likely to be so and so be it.

Launceston and the Maritime College's Future

Although the Australian Maritime College is presently remaining the only part of UTAS to remain at Newnham, I feel I must issue a cautionary word because if the community thinks it is safe here in Launceston it is sadly mistaken. 

There are only three things that for the time being keep the AMC in Newnham and it is their three core research facilities 

1. The tow tank 
2. he Ocean Test Basin 
3. The Cavitation Tunnel 

AMC used to earn very good money carrying out research for the Navy and others with research using these three facilities. The tow tank is in the basement of the main building, by now it is not world best as it is probably too short. AMC wanted to lengthen it years ago, but it was a bit hard and expensive. So an upgrade would be in a new building.

The ocean test basin I believe is a 50*50 pool no more than 2 meters deep. I remember it cost about $5 million. The good ones can be 15 meters deep with a movable floor to give any depth you want. At the time, the construction here gazumped the WA government from building a bigger one in Kwinana. The Cavitation tunnel is the ugly tall building near where the new apartments were built. This is the second cavitation tunnel built on AMC campus, the first was not good enough. A lot of it is pumps and machinery that could be taken elsewhere

Sadly, my prediction is that AMC will be on the shores of Hobart within 7 years because when it becomes finally obsolete they will build new bigger and better facilities there, probably in Kingston. 

Wherever it is it will be nicer than the Launceston campus, which is a good 80 km from the sea.

D Bowen

REPORT: Public Meeting Called By Concerned Citizens of Launceston February 9

An informal group of concerned citizens, ratepayers and residents convened a public meeting at the Tramshed Function Centre last Tuesday evening February 9 at 7 PM. 

The Mayor and Aldermen were invited to attend. Two Aldermen were in attendance, Ald. McKendrick and Ald. Sands, and their attendance was very much appreciated by those present. 

Importantly, the meeting was a community meeting, initiated and funded by a growing network of concerned community members living and conducting businesses the Launceston municipality. 

The meeting was facilitated and chaired Hon Rosemary Armitage MLC. As chairperson she ably maintained the independence and integrity of the meeting throughout its proceedings. 

Those attending the meeting represented a broad cross section of the community all of whom were provided with the opportunity to freely engage and contest a wide range of issues that emerged during the meeting. 

A diverse range of views were presented and discussed. After considerable deliberation the meeting resolved to move just one motion. It is as follows: 

“That this group of people identifying themselves as ratepayers and residents of the City of Launceston calls upon Council to rescind the Motion passed by full Council Meeting 9th November 2015 Item 20-20.1 To transfer land known as Willis Street Car Park and old Velodrome site at Inveresk to UTas for free gift.” 

Furthermore, it was requested that Council respond to the meeting via a media release within 30 days.

The meeting resolved that a number of issues and proposed resolutions should be set aside for further consideration following Council’s response to this meeting’s submission to Council as advised here.

Among the issues set aside were:

• That the land being offered to UTas be placed on the open market with a reserve price of $5million;
• That Council adopt a policy that all assets surplus to Council requirements be sold on the open market as well as being advertised Tasmania wide and nationally;
• That Launceston City Council and Taswater reject any development in the Inveresk and Invermay areas that adds to the sewerage and stormwater load being handled by pumping stations sending sewerage and stormwater to the Ti-Tree Treatment Plant.

Given the current state of affairs it is anticipated that other consequent issues may well emerge that will warrant community action to protect the interests of Launceston's citizens.

The group that convened the meeting have agreed to continue to liaise with the growing network 'concerned citizens' on these and related issues.

WELL DONE YOU!! ... The Examiner

GO2 .... http://www.examiner.com.au/story/3720566/campus-shift-defended/?cs=95

Today The Examiner published what appeared to be a pretty innocuous story at first glance. It’s that glance that newspapers expect you to take, and that you’re supposed to read briefly, take in superficially perhaps and move right along. 

Well that’s what many people probably did in their HARDcopy today but as sure a GOD made little apples the online readers dug in and read deeply. 

That is very good to see and with this ‘article’ it seems that the readers did start making connections and asking questions. That’s even better to see! 

A great many of the questions are incisive and not the sort of thing that those with by-lines are likely to put to readers – that is up to now perhaps? 

It seems that The Examiner is starting to build a stable of, and a following of, ‘Citizen Journalists’. This is a very good thing! 

If this continues The Tasmanian Times might well begin to worry about falling readerships and so on.  

By the way The Examiner is going, judging by this article, they might even be renewing themselves and gaining ‘New-Kid-On-The-Block’ status – not the dumb and inexperienced kind but the one with special tricks up their sleeves.

What is really interesting is the way the HARDcopy, Online editions and Social Media are beginning to interface and facilitate the testing of an interesting exchange of views. 

The Examiner has won, I think that’s the right word, 36 comments on this story today and they’re there forever as a reference. Well done you The Examiner, Trove (the online national digital library) and future researchers will love you. 

Ray Norman 

Launceston

STOLEN UNDER LICENCE FROM THE RATEPAYERS

TROUBLE DOWN IN SWAMPY LAND: Who Cares?

IT is confronting to experience Third World conditions in a First World country, but we did with water and sewage overflows at Invermay a few days ago....... Having just spent up to $60 million on flood levees and another lot of money on the Margaret Street pump station the city still can't stop sewage spilling on to our street in times of heavy rainfall, because it is a combined stormwater sewerage treatment process....... This peculiar system combines sewage and stormwater when the treatment outfalls are overwhelmed. Swell....... The combined system is supposed to prevent sewage spilling on to our streets but it failed at the weekend....... This is a health nightmare....... Taswater and the Launceston City Council can explain this any way they like, but the bottom line is, when it pours we are at risk of sewage contamination because we have a system that is either too expensive or too complex to fix....... It's like the good old days of the night cart....... If this happens during summer, the health ramifications are alarming....... What does a business do when the damage is more than excess stormwater, soiling the carpets and structure?...... It is up to the councils to ensure that TasWater has the capacity to at least improve basic hygiene.......Councils were relieved of quite a financial burden when they devolved water and sewerage functions to TasWater....... They collectively own TasWater and plunder its profits each year for dividends - $30 million in the past year, even after revenue from rates, fees and federal grants. Then they sit back, while the population suffers either poor boiled-water quality in regional councils or raw sewage overflows in 21st century cities....... If you were one of those wealthy Chinese tourists trying to admire the cascading Gorge from King Street Bridge, the local stories of raw sewage would tend to spoil and soil the clean-green image somewhat....... READ THIS AT THE EXAMINER ... Read the readers' comments

Apparently the recent rain in Launceston on one day amounted to the largest recorded rain event for the city. So down where the 'Swampies' live every drop of that rain falling on the inside of the city's new levies has to be pumped out and sometimes in to the convergence of two flooding rivers.

Its a somewhat arrogant assumption that there will always be room for it and all the more so given Launceston's paranoia about the spectre of inevitable 100 year flood. In fact that is so much the case that 'the council' made a video alerting everyone to this risk. SEE THE COUNCIL VIDEO https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BhpDFekiMM

Click on the map to enlarge it

However as The Examiner Editorial tells us about the health risks and they are substantial. The 'Swampies' have never been front of mind at the council it seems. But they're a proud lot and they're the very best even if a pretty ordinary lot with a great deal to deal with.

You only have to get off the main roadway through 'the swamp' to see that when a dollar is spent at council it usually isn't spent in 'the swamp'  – at least not on the kind of infrastructure provided other places.

The fact that on 'the swamp' the sewerage and storm water share the same pipes, and rest on or below sea level, and very often on or below the 'water table', says a great deal about the mind space the 'the swamp' holds at Town Hall. 

Except that is until there's a 'football deal' to be done ... or a business imagines it can turn a buck if the place is prettied up a bit etc. etc.

Whilst 'the swamp' flood risk is real "we don't live there", in fact "its not a place to live" and a bit of "collateral damage here and there" is to be expected 'in business'.

If there was actually a land shortage 'the swamp' might have seen some engineering brainpower put to work to 'tame the geography' . However, the population is relatively stable and there is ample land, so why invest in infrastructure in 'the swamp' when it might be better spent somewhere else?Well that's how it seems to go.

It has been a long time this way. If anyone is imagining that, so far as Launceston Council is concerned, that anything is is going to change all that much they are likely to be disappointed. This whole thing is like an unravelling tangle of who knows what.

As they say in the movies, "watch this space!"

T Vale

PUBLIC MEETING FEBRUARY 9 AT THE TRAMSHEDS FUNCTION CENTRE INVERESK 7PM

Launceston Concerned Citizens

WHO ARE THE LCC: LCC is an informal and growing network of  concerned citizens and ratepayers living in Launceston with an interest in civic affairs.

INVITATION: Launceston’s Mayor and Aldermen are invited to attend a Public Meeting and Open Forum

VENUE:  Inveresk Tramsheds Function Centre

DATE & TIME:  Tuesday February 9  7: 00 PM

AGENDA & STRUCTURE

Purpose

To provide Launcestonians with an opportunity to engage with Council in regard to issues relevant to the disposal of public land and assets and other consequent matters.

Independent Facilitator 

The Hon. Rosemary Armitage MLC
The Hon. Rosemary Armitage MLC to briefly outline her role as being:
 [A] To be an independent Facilitator/Chairperson 
[B] To ensure the smooth and orderly running of the meeting

1. Introductions
•  Welcome to the invited guests & others 
•  Apologies received

2. Agreed Goals & Process
• Explanation how the meeting will be conducted – The Hon. Rosemary Armitage MLC
• Explanation that the meeting's proceedings are being transcribed for the purpose of being place on       the Concerned Citizens website – The Hon. Rosemary Armitage MLC
• Suggested goals and process – Basil Fitch

3. Introductions

Mayor & Aldermen present 
• Statement/submission – Mayor should he wish to use the opportunity
• Statements/submission – Aldermen present should they wish to use the opportunity

Nominated Speakers

• Basil Fitch  –  Meeting's purpose and background

• Dr. Michael Powell –  Context for the UTas proposal

• Lionel Morrell – Ratepayer contextulisation

4. Q&A Session 

• Questions from the meeting
• Resolutions and/or motions from the meeting
• Q&A Closure

5. Open Forum 
•  Call on attendees to offer other ideas, action, motions 
•  Facilitated discussion  
•  Resolutions and/or motions from the meeting

6. Close meeting – Approximately 9. 30 PM

NOTICE
Pre-Meeting Submissions & Discussion Papers

Submissions Called For & Welcomed From The Public

SEE http://lcc63.blogspot.com.au/p/inveresk-submissions.html

For Further Information

eMAIL: LAUNCESTONprojects@bigpond.com

Has This Got Anything At All To Do With Launceston?

Click here to read this story & watch the video

The answer is quite probably!  .....  "NSW minister slams federal government on education policy ..... The federal government would take over TAFE funding from the states under a radical plan to be presented to the states and territories at a high-level meeting in March. Under the Turnbull government proposal, obtained by Fairfax Media, TAFE fees would be deregulated and TAFEs would receive the same levels of funding as private colleges in a bid to increase competition in the sector. ..... States could provide some top-up funding for TAFE, but only enough to ensure "competitive neutrality" with private providers under the shake-up, which would transform the vocational education and training (VET) sector. Advertisement ..... The paper, marked "in confidence", has been circulated to state governments for discussion ahead of a planned Council of Australian Governments (COAG) meeting in March. It is likely to meet strong resistance, given the scandals that have plagued the federal government's vocational loans scheme in recent months ..... Former TAFE Directors Australia chairman Bruce Mackenzie, who recently completed a major review of TAFE for the Victorian government, said the ideas contained in the paper were "clumsy" and "outdated"........... "

Perhaps this is worth taking note of given all that's going down.

D Bowen

MEETING NOTICE TUES FEBRUARY 9 AT 7 PM