TO PAY OR NOT TO PAY THAT IS THE QUESTION?

Questions, questions and more questions? This dumb lot raise so many questions. It is enough to send an old man grey. These so-called politicians seem to think that the Electoral Act does not apply to them and that people have short memories. 

Will Hodgman and his tourism mates out and about buying beers all round is more than dodgy and sending out cheques to bribe ‘the oldies’ into thinking that all is OK is as silly as and most likely illegal. So, if you’ve spent your $125 for Christmas you might be a little browned off.

Then there is Forestry and Minister Barnett. The industry is about as sustainable as the MIS Scheme have proven to be. With dwindling resources in a very competitive world market who is being fooled? Anyway, where are these promised forestry jobs that have not materialised?

Tasmania needs smart politicians who will level with them and who will hold themselves accountable. The current crop, well they just cannot cut it in the real world.

FROM THE EXAMINER: Backlash over Tasmanian Government's energy rebate scheme …. Matt Maloney A pre-Christmas gift promised by the state government has failed to be fulfilled for some pensioners and senior Tasmanians. Fairfax Media has received numerous complaints that eligible recipients of a $125 energy rebate have failed to receive their cheques around the expected date. The offer was made to anyone holding a Pensioner Concession Card and Commonwealth Seniors Health Card holders. Energy Minister Guy Barnett last week said 80,138 cheques had been sent. The total amount was worth more than $10 million. Burnie pensioner Michael Garrad said he was told the last batch of cheques were mailed out on December 12. “I know a lot of people who were hoping to receive it pre-Christmas,” he said. “It would have made a big difference for them and some have suffered financially because of the delay. “They were basically relying on having it delivered when they were told it would be delivered.” Kings Meadows pensioner Ian Williams said he was advised by Aurora Energy the cheque had been sent on December 8. Three weeks later, he was still waiting. Mr Williams questioned the method for distributing the rebate and said a more effective, and less costly, method would have been to deduct the amount from a future power bill. “It’s a real irritation – they continued to spruik this thing and now it is taking so damn long to receive the cheque,” he said. “Given Australia Post’s woeful reputation for timely mail delivery, you’d have to wonder which genius bureaucrat thought sending out thousands of letters in the fortnight before Christmas would see them delivered on time.” The administration and mail-out costs associated with the scheme is estimated to cost $100,000. Mr Barnett told a government business hearing this month the cheque distribution method was deemed the most efficient way to distribute the benefit to all eligible customers. “There are Pay As You Go customers for example, about 11,000, and to get the benefits direct to those customers, those pensioners doing it tough, this was deemed the most efficient and best way to go,” he said. Aurora Energy advised that the billing system wasn’t able to process the payments in the time frame required. 

... http://www.examiner.com.au/story/5143461/pensioners-left-waiting-for-125-government-energy-rebate/?cs=95

LOOK BACK, THEN AHEAD,THEN TRY TO FIND A PERSPECTIVE

Australia's universities at a crossroads By George Morgan-28 December 2017 first published 27 December 2017 - 11:15pm ................... Five years ago, the Labor government started giving universities a bag of money for every undergraduate they enrolled – with few limits. This sparked a five-year feeding frenzy in higher education that only ended in mid-December when the Turnbull government announced it would reimpose caps on publicly funded undergraduate places. The 'uncapped era' had benefits and costs. It widened access by bringing in people who in the 20th century would not have gone anywhere near a university. This presented pedagogical challenges for those of us teaching 'first-in-family'/ working class/ minority students, but university managements have generally not provided sufficient resources to allow us to meet these challenges. ................... Rather than employing more staff to deal with increased student numbers, they cut corners while telling the world they had "improved productivity". This meant casualising and outsourcing teaching work, cutting face-to-face hours or replacing them with online. Many of the new students have been short-changed and this is reflected in the drastic increase in the numbers of those who fail to complete their degrees.................... Although they all deny diminishing the quality of education, vice-chancellors frequently complain that higher education has for a long time been underfunded, notwithstanding the uncapping of places. This is true. Despite the misgivings of conservative politicians about the ballooning costs of higher education, public funding for Australian universities is less, as a proportion of GDP, than almost any OECD nation. And universities receive much less per student today than was the case 20 years ago.................... But this is only part of the reason teaching and research is so woefully under-resourced. When undergraduate places were uncapped, universities became more corporate and competitive. They spent vast sums on 'strategic initiatives' including marketing, branding, recruitment, on sprucing up the buildings and grounds to attract prospective undergraduates. Money that should have flowed through to the chalkface didn't. ................... For many institutions, this was not money well spent. In market systems, there are always winners and losers and it is very difficult for the newer universities to compete with the sandstones. They now enrol a smaller proportion of high and middle-achieving school leavers than in the past because the more prestigious universities have courted those students aggressively. Many of the degrees in regional and suburban universities have been kept afloat by reducing admission standards and offering alternative-entry pathways (practices that have recently become subject to greater state regulation).................... The unjust thing about this is that the quality of teaching and learning is often no better in the older universities – and in fact many perform much worse in student satisfaction surveys than their newer counterparts. But student choice is mostly (and probably rationally) driven by provenance and the perception that, whatever the learning experience, a sandstone degree provides more leverage in the job market.................... After the boom years of the first half of the decade, enrolments have plateaued in the last two years and the smaller institutions are feeling the pinch. The details of how the government plans to distribute publicly funded degree places between universities in the more regulated environment remains unclear.................... There have been vague statements about measuring university performance, including graduate employment outcomes, but what is clear is that the university system is now much more divided and unequal than it was before the folly of hyper-competition and that these deeper divisions will likely remain in place.................... In commenting on the policy changes, Minister for Education Simon Birmingham stated that universities must develop "a stronger focus on supporting students". But this is disingenuous and is hardly likely to be achieved by cutting funding. And it certainly won't be achieved unless there is fundamental reform to university decision-making. This means clipping the wings of a generation of university managers who have been encouraged in the uncapped system to act like hairy-chested entrepreneurs. And it means providing more power and resources to those engaged in the 'core business' of teaching and research. Without such reforms, many of the current problems will remain in place.................... George Morgan is Associate Professor at the Institute for Culture and Society at the University Western Sydney University.

SOURCE: https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/opinion/australias-universities-at-a-crossroads-20171228-h0armf.html

Is Launceston's Council Losing Its Constituency's Confidence?

DECEMBER 23 2017 - 7:59AM Royal Launceston Show Society says auditors report will not be made public Holly Monery ............... The Royal Launceston Show Society owes the City of Launceston more than $100,000, according to sources. [Actually it was the Mayor in The Examiner & on radio]............ It is understood other creditors are owed “significantly more”. ............ It was these figures, which were revealed in an independent auditor’s report, that the council used as the basis to deny further financial support. ............ Society president Jock Gibson said the document would not be made public. ............ “We are certainly not going to release it, it wouldn’t be normal to do so ... there are commercial considerations,” he said. ............ A meeting between council officers and society members on Friday did not reveal any new information that could help host a show in 2018, Mr Gibson said. ............ “They didn’t really have an answer for us, we will be having ongoing talks with them but they haven't put anything to us at this stage that changes the situation.” ............ Showmen's Guild of Tasmania secretary Diane Alexander said with the demise of the Royal Launceston Show and the Devonport show, many operators will not make the expensive trip across the Bass Strait. ......... “Almost half of our members come from the mainland, we do have a lot of members here in Tasmania with equipment but some of the major rides and games come from the mainlanders who come over for a few months and do the show circuit,” she said. ............ “With the second largest show in the state folding and third largest, which has already folded, they will definitely rethink coming to Tasmania.” ............ This could lead to a domino effect, where one by one the shows will fade away, Ms Alexander said. “It would not be economically viable, the little shows are the bread and butter, you don’t make a lot of money but it tides you over for the week.” The Showmen’s Guild members will not be the only people affected if the show folds. There are many volunteers, cottage industry participants, woodchopping, dog showing, horse jumping and agricultural competitors who take part in activities. ............ “That is basically why we have been trying so hard over recent years to keep the Launceston show going because we are fully aware of the implications that us not having a show would have,” Mr Gibson said. ........... http://www.examiner.com.au/story/5138605/show-society-in-more-than-100000-debt-to-council/

••••••••••••••••••••••••••

Commercial in confidence

A classification that identifies information that, if disclosed, may result in damage to a party’s commercial interests, intellectual property or trade secrets. You must not disclose any information marked ‘Commercial in Confidence’ without permission from the party who supplied it. This type of information is protected.

confidential [kon-fi-den-shuh l]

1.  spoken, written, acted on, etc., in strict privacy or secrecy; secret: a confidential remark. 
2. indicating confidence or intimacy; imparting private matters: a confidential tone of voice. 
3. having another's trust or confidence; entrusted with secrets or private affairs: a confidential secretary. 4. bearing the classification confidential, usually being above restricted and below secret. limited to persons authorized to use information, documents, etc., so classified.

SECTION 20 Local Govt. Act
Functions and powers 
(1) In addition to any functions of a council in this or any other Act, a council has the following functions: 
(a) to provide for the health, safety and welfare of the community; 
(b) to represent and promote the interests of the community; 
(c) to provide for the peace, order and good government of the municipal area. 
(2) In performing its functions, a council is to consult, involve and be accountable to the community. 
(3) A council may do anything necessary or convenient to perform its functions either within or outside its municipal area. 
(4) A council may transfer to a single authority or a joint authority 
(a) any of its assets and liabilities on any condition it determines; or 
(b) any of its employees. 
(5) A council may – 
(a) acquire, hold, dispose of and otherwise deal with property; and 
(b) sue and be sued in its corporate name.

SECTION 28 Local Govt. Act

Functions of councillors
(1) A councillor, in the capacity of an individual councillor, has the following functions:
(a) to represent the community;
 (b) to act in the best interests of the community;
 (c) to facilitate communication by the council with the community;
 (d) to participate in the activities of the council;
 (e) to undertake duties and responsibilities as authorised by the council.
 (2) The councillors of a council collectively have the following functions:
(a) to develop and monitor the implementation of strategic plans and budgets;
(b) to determine and monitor the application of policies, plans and programs for
    (i) the efficient and effective provision of services and facilities; and
   (ii) the efficient and effective management of assets; and
   (iii) the fair and equitable treatment of employees of the council;
(c) to facilitate and encourage the planning and development of the municipal area in the best interests of the community;
(d) to appoint and monitor the performance of the general manager;
(e) to determine and review the council's resource allocation and expenditure activities;
(f) to monitor the manner in which services are provided by the council.
(3) In performing any function under this Act or any other Act, a councillor must not 
(a) direct or attempt to direct an employee of the council in relation to the discharge of the employee's duties; or
(b) perform any function of the mayor without the approval of the mayor.
(4) A councillor is to represent accurately the policies and decisions of the council in performing the functions of councillor.

LINK ... http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdb/au/legis/tas/consol_act/lga1993182/

LEADERSHIP AND LAUNCESTON COUNCIL AND THE SHOW

Launceston’s Council’s leadership is a figment of somebody’s imagination and its not to be found anywhere near Town Hall. 

Council rounded off its year by licensing itself to do whoever’s bidding in secret and behind closed doors. 

Taking away constituent's opportunities to engage with council in fulsome free flowing community discourses via fortnightly Strategic Planning and Policy Committee meetings, well that was swept away like so many autumn leaves in a park on a windy day. 

This screws down the lid on the coffin that holds the remains of all hope for a meaningful critical discourse in the city.

Aldermen sprooking up their credentials as ‘elected decision makers’ seem to quickly assume that they have the social licence to do whatever it is they want well away from public scrutiny and behind tightly closed doors. 

Rumour and critical banter has the Mayor and Aldermen McKenzie, McKendrick and Finlay (and presumably others too) as the most often reported for such self-serving rhetoric – and it comes in various shapes and forms. At best this stuff is 'dumbed down schoolyard politics' unworthy of supposed grown-ups or even elected representative of a community such as Launceston.

Just try and contact an Launceston alderman other than on some designated occasion and you're likely to get a dumbed-down recorded message telling you how busy they are. Approach one at a public event and as often as not they'll find themselves in a deep private conversation, or they'll tell you they need to keep on circulating, or they'll tell you they have all the good oil and your concerns are trivial and totally unfounded. Worse still, they'll tell you it’s an "operational matter" that they cannot discuss with you as it’s in the hands of the General Manager and other officers. 

Then approach the GM, or any other council officer, and they're likely to tell you, if you hold an alternative view to themselves, count to three and wait for them to tell you to "talk to an alderman" or put your concerns in writing. Either way you’ve been fobbed off!

As time passes the tools of obfuscation become sharper and sharper. In the end, you have nothing to do but to continue to pay up and shut up – well that's the plan. If you do not, there is always the latent promise to 'sell you up' or 'come down on you like a ton of bricks' under some regulation or other. All the time 'council' surrounds itself with its self-congratulatory 'values' assumed to put 'council' way, way beyond criticism and critique – and to see you off in a flash ... LINK HERE.

How can you argue with anyone in power who claims to be telling you 'the truth' even though you've got copious evidence to counter such assertions?

All this is just a backdrop to three years of the increasingly evident dumbing down of council matters in Launceston.  Discretionary accountability is in practice at Launceston's Town Hall and its selling ratepayers very short. In accountability terms, four years of ‘all-in-all-out’ councils, have proven to be a disaster in so much as it has clearly propagated uninhibited hubris and a sense contemptuousness in regard to 'the constituency' with elections always quite a way away. 

Launceston's final council meeting for 2017 was a rolled gold exemplar of just about everything that a constituency would hope not to find in Local Government. The Mayor trying to smooth things over after the fact in the press and on TV might be as they say, 'suckering the punters' – well some of them. However, in the longer term its less and less likely to ‘cut it’ given that the constituency, on the evidence, is not nearly as dumb as the aldermen's beliefs and hopes for them. Also, they, 'the punters', are increasingly better connected via social media than most aldermen iy seems.

As for the projected demise of the Launceston Show, this is where the council has not done itself proud in the 'leadership stakes'. And this is not something that has just exhibited itself, it's been a background issue for quite some time. 

One might think that in a city like Launceston its council might be looking to promote the city more proactively via such events. 

‘Show Week’ in Launceston was once a boom time and it could be again.

One would think that a council might want to tap into the city's history and heritage wherever it could. With 144 years of history, Launceston show might well be seen as a rich opportunity to promote the city rather than dumbing down everything and characterising ‘The Show’ as being a liability and a drain on 'council funds'. 

Sadly, this dumbing down is on a relentless spiral downwards and heading nowhere interesting. 

Sure, 'agricultural shows' might need to be 'reimagined' in the way 'The Gorge' is currently being 'reimagined'. In order that 'The Show' might win 21st Century relevance, and audience support, change will be needed – and it’s very doable. 'The Show' is a part of Launceston's cultural heritage but it's highly unlikely that Launceston' exGM, Robert Dobrzynski, would have been inclined to include anything about it in his brief to Robin Archer (Cultural Consultant) who, apparently, is currently developing a 'cultural strategy' for the city.

No, no, no, as someone from somewhere else such things are unlikely to cross one's mind and something more gets whittled away when this lot of aldermen look away – or perhaps are playing some other game rather than representing their constituents.

However, the financial suffocation of 'The Show Society' has been ongoing for some time. And, despite the new GM's assurances that "Council has [not] engineered the steady decline of the Royal Launceston Show" anyone with their ear to the ground could be excused for thinking otherwise. Then again, he'd have to say wouldn't he?!

Launceston Council has only ever offered token support as other forces coveted 'Show Society land'. In fact, Aldermen McKenzie and Alexander watched over the demise (some say an orchestrated demise) of YPIPA (York Park and Inveresk Precinct Authority) the ‘council body’ that once championed 'The Show'. Unsurprisingly, the event's future has been becoming increasingly bleak with all this going on in the background one shouldn't be surprised.

Given YPIPA's vision was to see the Inveresk precinct as a "vibrant cultural centre for Entertainment, Education and Recreation", YPIPA's summary demolition as an 'authority' saw the prospect of 'The Show' having its future undermined and increasingly– and becoming more and more tenuous. 

So much for local culture, so much for the aspirations of ordinary Launcestonians. When one-dimensional dumb and muddle headed thinking seems to hold the trump card it’s hard to see a way forward – nor indeed would there be any room for logic.

Given all that is at stake, what should have happened long ago was a community consultation process tasked to find a new way forward for 'The Show' given all the signals and the 'flashing warning lights' telling us that such a thing was needed. That the city of Launceston's Council has been missing in action, its inaction is palpable. Given all the signals that such a thing was, and arguably still is, very much needed, just what is holding it back? 

Interestingly, the Royal National Agricultural and Pastoral Society (RNAPS) still holds the key cards in this unmistakably sinister game of chance.  What would allow such a process to begin? As for the so-called 'devastating debt' to the Council, well that could be paid off over time. As for raising funds, options exist. As for what 'The Show’ might look like that’s something worth exploring.

In all this the City of Launceston's Council has been missing and its recalcitrance is palpable. 

Given Council’s lack of leadership, and Council’s community disconnect, 'The Show’ is only likely survive as an event with cultural significance in Launceston if the community works with the RNAPS. Council could facilitate that but apparently its a looking away with other things in mind – maybe that's a bridge too far.

The very notion that the proposed University of Tasmania’s relocation not being a factor in the decision to refuse a financial request from the RNAPS, well it is implausible. To help host the Launceston Show in 2018 the City of Launceston is blighted by it own serial and demonstrated disregard for 'The Show'. Among Council's unfolding visions, visions that are largely only ever discussed 'in secret' it seems, one wonders just how grotty all this is yet to get.

Council's decision, again behind closed doors, to knock back a proposal for Council to buy back the Launceston Showgrounds lease was as sinister as it is malevolent. Yet, the notion that the show could not go on without the support of Council given the financial situation is challengeable.

And then there is this breaking news
FROM BASIL FITCH'S FACEbook: "Newnham university campus to be bulldozed for housing! Fire Brigade asked to assess the whole campus site for housing! 

• What is the real truth about the refusal by Launceston City Council to support the Show Society? 
• Where does the truth really lie with the UTas Newnham Campus and Inveresk? 

Multi millions of dollars wasted and more being wasted. SCAM!!!!! Commercial-in-confidence - Van Zetten reveals that the Show Society debt is $100,000. 

University so-called Master Plan July 2017 clearly marks 750 car parking spaces on the Show Society's land! 

Lies, lies and more damn lies!" ... https://www.facebook.com/search/top/?q=launceston%20city%20council

LINKS THUS FAR

• Royal Launceston Show future debated during closed council meeting ... http://www.examiner.com.au/story/5126646/royal-launceston-show-future-in-councils-hands/

• Launceston’s show will not go on. Royal Launceston Show Society board members are devastated that their last-ditch effort to save the event has been knocked back by City of Launceston council. ... http://www.examiner.com.au/story/5134777/launceston-show-cancelled-after-last-ditch-attempt-fails/

• The Royal Launceston agricultural show ends its 144-year run ... http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-12-20/launceston-royal-agricultural-show-axed/9277264

• Royal Launceston Show Society says auditors report will not be made public ... The Royal Launceston Show Society owes the City of Launceston more than $100,000, according to sources.... http://www.examiner.com.au/story/5138605/show-society-in-more-than-100000-debt-to-council/

• Royal Launceston Show ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Launceston_Show

More Secret Meetings For Launceston's Council

This news is a total denial of community access to their representatives.  The workshops being flagged in this story are in fact what was once called 'cutting and drying sessions'. Whatever, they are a denial of accountability and transparency and and an exemplar of 'discretionary accountability'.

Also,  this Council seems to be totally committed to secret backroom dealing contorary to its publish "values" ... https://www.launceston.tas.gov.au/Council/Our-Vision-Mission-and-Values.  See this on the CoL Website and think it through! Likewise, keep this quote in mind as you ponder these values ... “A body of men holding themselves accountable to nobody ought not to be trusted by anybody.” Thomas Paine

 Vision

Launceston is proud of its heritage and is a vibrant and inclusive community that is creative and sustainable, inspired by its diverse opportunities and rich natural environment.

Mission

We work together as one organisation to deliver quality and innovative services to our community.

Values

Integrity

• We behave ethically
• We tell the truth
• We keep our commitments
• We meet both the spirit and intent of the law

Stewardship

• We care about people and the community in which we live
• We operate safely
• We are environmentally responsible
• We strengthen the community   

Inclusion

• We value diversity and respect the dignity of each person
• We value differences in people and perspectives
• We build relationships based on mutual trust
• We recognise the contributions of every individual 

Initiative

• We lead the way
• We have the courage and creativity to shape the future
• We have the discipline to manage risk
• We act decisively in a timely manner

Teamwork

• We work together to achieve superior results
• We share ideas and talents to develop solutions
• We support and rely on each other
• We value clear and open communication 

Accountability

• We take responsibility for our actions
• We live our values
• We set clear goals, measure results and seek to improve
• We build and protect the Launceston brand and reputation 

                   

FROM THE EXAMINER

The Strategic Planning and Policy Committee will no longer operate

• 

  Holly Monery

Local News

• FACEBOOKSHARE
• TWITTERTWEET
• EMAIL

 Launceston's Town Hall

The city council’s Strategic Planning and Policy Committee will be disbanded due to the public nature of its meetings.

Alderman agreed at Monday’s council meeting that it was difficult for matters to be discussed freely since the SPPC was first opened to the public in 2013.

“Indeed, the public nature of these meetings has caused issues for the council whereby matters are being prematurely released into the public realm before the council and council officers are able to thoroughly work through issues together,” the meeting agenda said.

“Accordingly, it is considered that the current SPPC is not fulfilling its primary purpose of providing a forum for aldermen and senior officers to consider significant long-term policy matters and as such it may be a more appropriate use of time and resources to dissolve the SPPC special committee in favour of council workshops.”

Council workshops are closed to the public and are often held at the conclusion of the committee meetings. 

“The opening up of the SPPC meetings to members of the public has caused fewer and fewer matters to be directed to these meetings,” the agenda said.

In 2015 the former general manager Robert Dobrzynski told The Examinerthe council was “in favour of transparency, which is why we have opened our SPPC meetings to the public …”

Many stories written by journalists at The Examiner have been sourced from information gathered at SPPC meetings.

Some of those from 2017 alone include:

• Interim model for mobile food vans at High Street
• Hart Street and Hobler's Bridge to get flood levee wall
• School starting age changes could mean the closure of half of Launceston's long day care centres
• Australia Day date change debated by City of Launceston
• Petition requests CCTV at multiple locations in Rocherlea
• City of Launceston asked to be proactive on preventative health measures
• Changes proposed to council’s Dog Management Policy
• Tour of Tasmania, seeks $10,000 from City of Launceston

IT'S CHRISTMAS: Should we laugh or should we cry?

JUST A COPY OF A POST ON SPEAK UP LAUNCESTON AFTER BEING MADE AWARE OF THE SP&P COMMITTEE ITEM ON THE COUNCIL AGENDA MONDAY 17 DEC. 

Anyone on Facebook might want to share the Speak Up post around.

Should we laugh or should we cry?  But its Christmas next week!

Part of the City Council's Strategic Plan 2014-2024 claims to be an 'accountable and responsive Organisation' and to 'ensure decisions are made in a transparent and accountable way' etc. 

Speak Up L'ton has been alerted to a couple of items on the agenda for this Monday's City Council meeting - the last Council meeting for the year 2017 (17 Dec). 

Of concern is the recommendation in Agenda Item 21.3 to 'disband the Strategic Planning & Policy Committee.' At the moment, the SP&P committee is generally open to the public, but can also go into closed sessions. 

But now the plan is to get rid of it altogether (Agenda pages 129-131)

The second concern is about the Show Society's Show Report 2017 which was discussed in a Council Workshop on 11 Dec. 

In relation to this on Monday is Item 23.2, when the public council meeting goes behind closed doors - Closed Council (no members of the public allowed thank you) to discuss the Show Society's RNAPS Report to Council. 

Why Closed Council? Because they can. Regulation 15(2)(c) says that "commercial information of a confidential nature that, if disclosed, is likely to: 

(i) prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it; or 

(ii) confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the council; or 

(iii) reveal a trade secret." - 'transparent'? 'accountable'? 'communicate and engage'... 'with community and stakeholders'? 'champion collaboration'? 

Back to the first question - should we laugh or cry? "

Merry Christmas: City of Launceston COUNCIL AGENDA Monday 18 December 2017 130 21.3

CLICK HERE TO MAKE THE LINK

Reading this agenda item and just before Christmas you just know that your council has your best interests at heart. Who needs to know all the ins and outs of council business and especially so while the cutting and drying is going on. 

You see Strategic Planning and Policy Committee meetings should be arranged so all that goes on quite quietly and well away the rabble and to avoid the annoyance that too many ratepayers cause. 

Workshops (definition yet to be provided) are the place where the officers can pull those aldermen who are inclined to listen to their constituents into line. You see confidentiality without too much accountability is what is required for efficiency and effective management. Anyway, most constituents never read council agendas and when they do get to them they find them unedifying and somewhat obtuse. 

Do not worry quite a few (most?) aldermen do not bother to read them either and some even boast they do not as there is no point since they are there for the record only. Thus they are of minimal use. The real stuff is never written down because that sort of thing only gets one into trouble. 

But anyway here we go look at this agenda item to see what you can make of it.  It is after all  Christmas!

"21.3 Action in Respect of the Strategic Planning and Policy Committee FILE NO: SF3108

AUTHOR: John Davis (Manager Corporate Strategy) 

GENERAL MANAGER: Michael Stretton (General Manager)

• DECISION STATEMENT: To consider disbanding the Strategic Planning and Policy Committee.   

• PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Pre-Council Workshop - 4 December 2017

• RECOMMENDATION: That Council disbands the Strategic Planning and Policy Committee. 

 REPORT: The General Manager met with Aldermen on 4 December 2017 to discuss the possibility of disbanding the Strategic Planning and Policy Committee (SPPC). The SPPC has been in operation for many years having initially been established as a Special Committee under section 24 of the Local Government Act 1993 (the Act). 

The Council's former Governance Arrangement Policy and Strategic Planning and Policy Committee Policy initially set out the parameters of the Committee, namely that: 

• Its role was to consider and discuss significant long-term policy matters and make recommendations to Council; 
• It comprised membership of Aldermen and Council Directors; 
• Was provided with no delegated authority; and 
• Its Meetings were to be held in closed session. 

In 2013 the Council revised the arrangements for the SPPC to achieve compliance with the former Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2005 (Regulations). 

The revised arrangements included the following changes: 

• The Committee was formed under section 23 of the Act as a Council Committee and therefore the representatives were limited to Aldermen; 
• Notices of meetings were published in The Examiner; 
• Meetings were open to the public; 
• An ability for the Committee to make a decision to enter into a Closed Meeting; 
• Minutes to be generated and managed in accordance with the regulations. 

 Since this time the Council has operated the SPPC under the above-mentioned terms, however, it has also conducted Aldermen Workshops following the conclusion of the Council Committee Meetings. 

In practice, the opening up of the SPPC Meetings to members of the public has caused fewer and fewer matters to be directed to these Meetings. This is due to the public nature of the Meetings which has made it difficult for Aldermen and staff to freely discuss and work through matters. 

Indeed, the public nature of these Meetings has caused issues for the Council whereby matters are being prematurely released into the public realm before the Council and Council officers are able to thoroughly work through issues together. 

Accordingly, it is considered that the current SPPC is not fulfilling its primary purpose of providing a forum for Aldermen and Senior Officers to 'consider significant long-term policy matters' and as such it may be a more appropriate use of time and resources to dissolve the SPPC Special Committee in favour of Council Workshops. 

ECONOMIC IMPACT: Not considered relevant to this report. 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: Not considered relevant to this report. 

SOCIAL IMPACT: Not considered relevant to this report."