The scene being played out in Launceston's Civic Square right next to Town Hall could well be a comedy if it were not for the seriousness of the unfolding truths currently being revealed.
When put on the spot, Alderman Finlay revealed that there were indeed costs to be born by ratepayers consequent to the serial bureaucratic bungling that resulted in the components of Stephen Walker's 1992 'TASMANIAN TABLEAU' being scattered about as if this civic sculpture was a bunch of toys. It was a gift to the city to commemorate THE EXAMINER's Sesquicentennial.
It is no trivial matter to toy with the moral rights of artists and authors under Australia Copyright law. All too often when an artist/author has died bureaucrats get to think that nobody will be looking and that perhaps nobody cares. When they do care, and the ineptitude of the bureaucratic insensitivity is on display, and is called out, the backroom whispering and denials eventual gets to be loud enough to hear,
Alderman Finlay finally fessed up to there being a cost to sorting out the bungle albeit she did not challenge the advice provided to Council when council was asked if an estimate of the costs involved in, and related to, addressing the issue of the artist’s/author’s moral rights being violated. The response on the record is that "there are no additional costs to the Civic Square project associated with these sculptures." This could never have been anything like the truth but without a whimper of any kind the alderpeople one and all let the flawed advice go without comment. That's accountability in action for you.
Presumably, given that SECTION 65 requires the General Manager guarantee advice offered in Council's agendas that was good enough for all the alderpeople despite such advice defying every kind of logic. Alderman Finlay finally let the cat out of the bag when she advised that "that as the Civic Square redevelopment project is under budget any costs associated with the sculpture being reinstated as intended can be absorbed within the current budget". Alderman Finlay, or indeed any other alderperson or officer has provided any evidence for the project being "under budget" and in any event it is of no consequence as clearly there are "additional costs" albeit unspecified and confidential.
Clearly, Alderman Finlay's advice demonstrates that there are indeed additional unbudgeted costs associated with honouring the artist’s/author’s moral rights. These are the very rights that have been bureaucratically dismissed apparently and sidestepped as a consequence of Council’s seemingly dysfunctional planning processes. Moreover, this bureaucratic advice is contrary to the advice provided on the record in the COUNCIL AGENDA Monday 4 June 2018
After that, it appears to be the case that collectively Launceston's alderpeople's financial competence is open to be questioned given their implied apparent uncritical acceptance of operational budgets in the first instance and subsequently given their apparent predisposition to accept, and uncritically, self-serving managerial advice.
When advice turns out to be flawed and less than “expert” in accord with SECTION 65 of the Local Govt. Act 1993 the city's alderpeople, ratepayers' representatives in a fiscal context, accountability falls to the alderpeople and there can be no ducking of the issue.
It is of some concern that it appears that in this and possibly other cases too, that the alderpeople do not recognise
that there are indeed significant costs flowing to ratepayers as a consequence of ta bureaucratic blunder. Moreover, a blunder that must result in the curtailment of expenditure elsewhere unless one subscribes to 'cargo cult delusions'. It appears as if the alderpeople collectively do not acknowledge that Council’s primary income source is the city’s ratepayers and in this instance at least, they are careless of that fact. In fact a regular meeting attender has reported that the term "ratepayer" is rarely if ever heard uttered around the 'Council table'.
Indeed, it seems that ratepayers can expect the alderpeople, by default, to represent Council's officers rather than them, the city's ratepayers. This discounts somewhat all those assertions to do with caring about and understanding your constituency’s aspirations and needs to be talked about at election time. The speculations, to do with what the actual cost of anything might be in fact and in a circumstance where ‘commercial-in-confidence’ just does not cut it and it leaves ratepayers hung out to dry paying more and more without any expectation of aldermanic accountability.
It is all the more worrying when ratepayers get to thinking about just how they are being represented on subcommittees etc., committees like the Audit Panel, in an atmosphere of diminishing trust in Council’s accountability. Interestingly, if one does not pay one's rates you are likely to be 'sold up'.
When the bleedingly obvious and writ large for all to see it may be worth taking note. Even if it is a bit late it might be as good a time as any to own up to the serial stuff-ups. By doing so Council would be demonstrating that it is up front about its caring for cultural producers’ moral rights and community values. It might also be a time when cultural producers are valued via a public apology to Stephen Walker’s family and the ‘arts community’.
