A FEW QUESTIONS

DIVINING THE DEPTH OF THE PROBLEM

Launceston's City Deal funding for redevelopment of the CBD – Brisbane Street Mall and Civic Square  – seemingly  means  that meaningful community consultation  and engagement points to Town Hall's community disconnect.

With the price of the disconnection come the rumours of "costly monumental stuff ups" it seems. So bad are they, talk of a request for a "forensic audit" would seems to be a way ahead if this Council has found its gonads and is prepared to fess-up to the stuff-ups. 

The Council has said that its reviewing 'project delivery' and we have to hope that it will include a review of Civic Square, Brisbane Street Mall projects along with the Riverbend Park project. This current crop of alderpeople aught not to be blowing their trumpets so loudly under the circumstances.

If they imagine that they have a future on Council they need to pray very hard for their constituency's inability to divine the difference between up and down. Especially as its a skill they themselves have spent no time acquiring as demonstrated by the CBD development debacle and it projected aftermath. 

It is more than apparent that the Mayor's specialist team 'spin doctors' is able to 'get the Examiner on board' with Town Hall's 'marketing imperatives'. Even so, The Chamber of Commerce's EO has called out the Mall for being “an underwhelming blank canvas”. That's not the kind of thing the Mayor and his merry band would like to hear.

An apparently bemused ratepayer has written to The Examiner saying “kindergarten children could do better”. The Mayor's marketing team failed to head that one off!

Given that Launceston's former General Manager, according to Town Hall sources,  last year, before work commenced, brushed aside concerns in regard the risk hazards embodied in elements of the proposal for The Mall. One has to wonders what the Council’s risk officer did about this advice. Also, did the alert get to the aldermen and if it did and they too ignored it, why?

Business people, if you ask almost any single one, will readily tell you that the Council "just does not listen" and all too often it costs them big time.  It seems that Council is unable to countenance 'engaging with the community' on anything the community is expected to pay for. Council has the power to force them to pay, so why bother with the niceties. Just go through the motions!

Relying upon experts from almost anywhere else, as this Council does by default, and has, usually turns out to be expensive and then there are always those uncomfortable questions. Questions that this Council answers with, "it is commercial in confidence".  Surely not!

If Launceston was ever a 'leader' right now all this demonstrates that the city is a follower. Trouble is this lazy lot of alderpeople have been following a 'dumb-bum piper' down a blind alley.

The Council’s sloppy planning, and its disinclination to engage in meaningful research,  quality research,  inclusive research, has reached the point of being indefensible.

Far too many businesses in the CBD are struggling far too much. If this crop of aldermen were underperforming dairy cows they would be so many sausages in no time at all. There is little doubt that it's time for a mass cull. No quarter needs to be given.

The  responses coming from Town Hall are just not good enough. The ways and means for their replacements to be proactively engaged with their constituents must be found. 

That is a project that must start in November! REMEMBER, there is a $20Million debt to be covered somehow.

Trev of Newstead

THE UNDERWHELMING BLANK CANVAS

 CLICK ON AN IMAGE TO ENLARGE

  CLICK ON AN IMAGE TO ENLARGE

  CLICK ON AN IMAGE TO ENLARGE

THE UNDERWHELMING BLANK CANVAS was how the Launceston Chamber for Commerce EO, Neil Grose, described the new Brisbane Street Mall when asked on ABC radio on Friday morning after businesses “had done it tough” over the last couple of months. 

What a sad DISGRACE that the Launceston City Council allowed the waste of $26.5m to rebuild the Civic Square and Mall only to be labelled as looking UNFINISHED and BLAND. 

Even the LCC General Manager, Michael Stretton, all but admitted on Tasmania Talks radio that more ratepayers money will need to be spent FIXING the MISTAKES including identified HAZARDOUS structures and confessed to receiving numerous COMPLAINTS from public. 

How much more money has to be spent on this stuff up? Ratepayers will be facing a MULTI-MILLION dollar bill – yet again. 

There is NO allocation of money in the budget for upgrades – the Mall and Civic Square were meant to be the FINISHED projects (despite what Neil Grose incorrectly indicated). 

Surely, then, in the planning process someone would have highlighted to the council the ERRORS of their ways? YES there was, but were they listened to? 

The answer to this question in an open letter to council is a MUST READ on Tasmanian Ratepayers Association…. https://tasratepayers.blogspot.com/2018/09/civic-works-critiques-and-worries.html (WARNING - prepare yourself to be shocked!) 

It is time for a CHANGE in council and it is in DESPERATE need for a clean out!! Please SHARE with your friends so that they too can see the TRUTH that council would prefer to be kept quiet.

'J' A peed of punter

CLICK HERE TO SEE EDITOR'S NOTE ON RATEPAYER SITE

Launceston Town Hall, Governance, Management & Accountability

'Lax' IOOF management accused of misleading board

OR IT COULD BE

Launceston City Council confuses management and governance roles with undesirable outcomes

Just when you think that what's going on in your patch is outrageous and those who should know better are shouting out "go away nothing to see here" articles like this turn up in the press. Even when, as is the case in Launceston, the 'masthead press' owns and runs your local rag we do not seem to have editors who can join dots and alert the punters to what's going on in the world to their cost. 

Yes of course, its acknowledged there are some other strange dynamics in play.

Anyone not gleaning their NEWS from TV will have missed 'His Honour' deal with the string of recalcitrant operatives dragged kicking and screaming before him will have missed what's likely to turn out to be a 'benchmark inquiry' in action. His Honour's body language does a goodly amount of the communicating an its very effective communication. There's a lot more that can be said BUT enough for now.

Please find some time to read this article, think back over say the last decade at Launceston's Town Hall, compare and contrast LCC behaviours and IOOF behaviours, and think about it as you research how you will vote in the local government election in Lonnie!

CLICK HERE TO READ ONLINE @ SMH: ...The prudential regulator has blasted financial heavyweight IOOF, accusing the company's management of misleading its board while the board itself was reluctant to tackle governance issues or properly document its meetings. ............. The documents, dating from March 2016 to June 2017 and recently released by the Hayne royal commission, show the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) were also concerned about the quality of IOOF's board minutes, saying its chairman George Venardos believed detailing full discussion in board minutes could "get an organisation into trouble should litigation later arise". ............ APRA was also concerned about the fitness of the board's directors "given the apparent unwillingness of IOOF directors, in particular the chair of the board, to recognise and address ongoing prudential issues", according to a memo from the regulator about its prudential review into the group from June 2017. ............ The release of the documents comes after a bruising experience at the royal commission for the wealth manager, which as at June 30 had total funds under management and advice of $125.9 billion. The royal commission's interim report relating to the first four rounds of hearings is expected to be tabled in parliament on Friday. ............ IOOF was slammed in preliminary findings handed down by the commission in August over its decision to compensate investors in its Questor Cash Management Trust fund with their own money and for preferencing shareholders over superannuation members. IOOF also came under fire over its incomplete and handwritten board minutes during the hearings. ............ The preliminary finding by the commission also scorched IOOF chief executive Chris Kelaher, saying he lacked insight why IOOF's conduct was problematic and "the fundamental obligations of a trustee and the directors of a trustee". ............ The company rejected the preliminary findings, saying it understood its legal duties and again pointing to its argument that it passed the "pub test" because investors who lost money in the Questor CMT had been made good. ............ APRA began a prudential review of IOOF in 2015 following an investigation by Fairfax Media that revealed the group was riddled with serious governance issues including a lack of conflict management, allegations of insider trading by a staff member, front-running, misrepresentation of performance figures, and cheating on compliance exams by senior staff. ............ The investigation also showed IOOF's research department plagiarising research reports by investment banks including JPMorgan while also changing the overall recommendations on the notes. It took no action against the group. ............ In September, APRA said it would re-open its investigations into IOOF in a submission to the royal commission following concerns the regulator had gone soft on the wealth manager. ............ A March 2016 document tendered by APRA to the commission titled "note for file" details APRA's concerns about IOOF's culture including management potentially misleading the company's board. ............ Management are not always challenged by the board, and appear to make decisions on behalf of the board ... APRA document ............ "Management are not always challenged by the board, and appear to make decisions on behalf of the board, or alternatively frame the information going to the board in a biased way," the document states. ............ "Culture towards compliance with prudential standards has been lax with a possible lack of superannuation knowledge within the business." ............ The same document shows IOOF claiming "we had recognised problems with research prior to media report, and had planned to appoint the head of SFG research in replace of Peter Hilton". ............ Mr Hilton was the head of research at IOOF at the time of Fairfax Media's investigation, which revealed he had received two final warnings while the head of research at the group. The commission also released a memorandum from June 14, 2017 to APRA's general manager specialised institutions division, Stephen Glenfield, detailing the regulator's observations and concerns during it prudential review by IOOF. ............ The seven-page report shows APRA had considered the fitness of IOOF's directors "given the apparent unwillingness of IOOF directors, in particular the chair of the board, to recognise and address ongoing prudential issues arising from the recognition and management of conflicts of interest". ............ IOOF and Mr Venardos, who was a director of Ardent during the Dreamworld tragedy and was appointed IOOF chairman in November 2016 replacing then chairman Roger Sexton, did not respond to Fairfax Media's inquiries. .............. IOOF is in the process of buying ANZ's OnePath pensions and investments business.

WELL, WELL THE WAGES OF INDOLENCE HAVE BEEN REVEALED

At last the field of runners is known and Town Hall will undoubtedly be bracing itself for the next era with the old one fading away into the sunset. For four years this crop of alderpeople have become rather comfortable in their seats around the table but today it is revealed that their seats are indeed coveted. Yet, the incumbents see themselves as 'stayers' and they have all put their hands up for the maintenance of the status quo. However, it seems that they may well have already done enough to brown-off a great many of their constituents.

Interestingly there is a field of 32 and that may mean that this lot has done something to more than 'brown-off' the electorate. Some are saying "pissed off" is probably a more accurate way to describe  the outcome of this bunch of alderpeople's achievements. Whatever, we will soon see just who gets a chance to dip their euphemistic snouts in the 'civic trough'.

In Launceston, 'TOWN HALL' has become an expletive in the local vernacular but typically it has

a particular descriptive word before it when in use, and usually, it is followed by a couple more expletives. It is probably like this the world over yet close to home there are nuances that enrich almost every aspect of city life conversations that tend to echo well into the hinterlands.

As the lights fade, the chairs around the table get brushed off, and the cold draft swirls around the incumbents feet, it will be a little time yet before the obituaries are to be written. Likewise, there will be valedictory speeches to be given as families and others prepare to spend more time going wherever and doing whatever it is one does at times like this.

Anyway, clear the decks for the mud slinging ahead as this 'election' is likely to turn out to be a rather noisy business.                                                                                                                                                   

About a year ago the omnipresent Basil Fitch declared that "at the next election there must be at least 24 viable candidates for council." It seems that he may well have got his wish but the betting is that he is as surprised as anyone that it is actually 32. So too, will the incumbents be surprised if not stunned.

The field is bigger than the Melbourne Cup's but there we go the bookies are going to have a 'Field Day'.  The candidates scrutineers will very likely to be sporting headaches as the electoral people do their stuff. Hold on to your hats people!

Ray Norman

Researcher & Cultural Geographer

Launceston

CLICK HERE FOR THE LIST OF RUNNERS

BASIL FITCH ELECTION MATERIAL

LCC NEWS invites all candidate to provide digital copies of their election information to enable voters to gain online access to information relevant to candidates standing for election in the City of Launceston Council elections. ... email lancestonpr@bigbond.com with your information

CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO ENLARGE

DEALING WITH A CREDIBILITY GAP A MILE WIDE

https://www.examiner.com.au/story/2399599/council-wants-state-help-with-qvmag-funding/

I've written to the Mayor only to get a rendition of his same old, paraphrased, 'we cannot do anything just now and we know that something needs to be done' that's supposed by him to be a positive and credible response. 

I'd written to the Mayor acknowledging the current GM's indication that the QVMAG needed, and was about to get, an audit given the alert the 'missing Brett Whiteley drawing' tells us all about. His response was welcomed and it points to there being a lot more than an audit being needed albeit that it is a very important consideration looking ahead. 

However, yet again the Mayor offers reasons for ‘doing nothing until something happens’ and we're all left wondering what needs to be done to encourage the Mayor and his merry bunch of Aldermen to acknowledge their obligations as default ‘trustees’. They are happy enough to conscript recurrent funding but are apparently unwilling to be held accountable.

Serially, and surreally, this bunch at Town Hall are consistent in their capacity to miss the point along with almost every opportunity for positive change. 

The question waiting for an answer is why would, or could, or even should the City of Launceston's and the QVMAG's constituency ‘trust’ the QVMAG's trustees? That also includes the institution's donors, sponsors beyond the ratepayers and the State government.

By default the Mayor is the ‘default chairperson’ of the 'QVMAG Trustees’. In the life of this Council I cannot recall either the Mayor or the aldermen initiating anything meaningful towards a  strategic policy determination with a productive outcome. More to the point, I cannot recall any of the elected representative being prepared to listen to, or even seek ‘expert advice’ relevant to the QVMAG – other than one or two who eventually were dissuaded in their interest. 

Sometimes advice came via the GM, arguably, self-serving 'convenient' bureaucratic advice provided by the then GM under SECTION 62 of the local government Act. That was 'advice' he was required to provide under under SECTION 65 of Tasmania’s Local Govt Act. 

I do however recall quite well how 'Council collectively' stood in the way of advice inconvenient to management getting any kind of hearing in favour of the maintenance of the status quo. That has brought the QVMAG to its current less than happy circumstances with what is now clearly apparent, questionable accountability. 

Accountability is something that the Mayor, and some aldermen, have consistently denied being an issue whenever I’ve brought my concerns to Council’s attention. Now there is clear evidence that accountability, the lack of it, has been an issue all that time. 

Standing out front of an iconic building 'crying poor' just does not cut it as an exemplary 'strategic initiative'. Begging for $3Million on the strength of an argument that 'we believe that we need it'. All this and apparently on the GM's 'advice' – not independent expert advice from a credible expert with domain knowledge. It beggars belief and tests the outer limits of credibility.

Moreover, now that it is as clear as it ever has been while I’ve been researching ‘musingplaces’ – with the QVMAG as a case study – that the institution’s governance is totally inadequate and functionally unaccountable – and arguably at times delinquent. No amount of deeming changes that. 

The trickle-down to management has not been helpful in that the institution has been virtually, and recalcitrantly, ‘rudderless’ given Council’s collective failures in governance and the blurring of  governance's and management's roles. 

As inactive – virtually abdicated – default ‘trustees’ Council's inaction and failures have had unwelcome impacts upon not only QVMAG staff but also the wider Tamar/Esk Region – and for that there is no reason for congratulations. 

Given that the local government elections are upon us it is time for Council's alderpeople  to ‘fess-up’ to their failures and inadequacies. They need to do so in order to clear a way forward without the lead-in-the-saddle the status quo burdens the QVMAG with. 

Collectively,  incumbent QVMAG Trustees may well want to claim that as ‘trustees’ they have  punched-above-your-weight, I’m sorry they didn't and have not. 

I look forward with considerable interest to just what judgements the City of Launceston makes given that there is so, so much at stake, and so, so many opportunities to be realised, given all that ratepayers et al have invested in the institution. Council conscripts the QVMAG's recurrent funding from ratepayers  and has been doing over a very long time but there is much, much more invested in the institution than this indicates.

OH YES, listen up there is a secret plan in hand to change everything but as ratepayers and residents, donors and sponsors we must be patient until the rabbit is pulled from the hat and then vote for these 'trustees' who are so, so unwilling to take their constituency into their confidence. 

So where's the accountability?

Ray Norman

Researcher & Cultural Geographer

Sept 2018

THE FOLLEY OF ELECTED TRUSTEES AT THE QVMAG

WHERE TO FROM HERE?

The situation at the Queen Victoria Museum & Art Gallery (QVMAG) that's been unfolding publicly is pretty much the way things have been for quite some time. Also, in regard to the inadequacy of the QVMAGs ‘collection policy’ there's clearly been 'Aldermanic disinterest' in the QVMAG as a 'cultural asset' – rather imagined as a cost centre and something of a liability.

Arguably, in all practical terms the City Council has been looking the other way so far as the QVMAG'S governance is concerned for well over a decade – some might argue longer.

Specifically, there is nowhere near enough attention paid to the institution to mitigate against the kind of outcome that's become more obvious withe the revelation that the QVMAG's collections are indeed leaking, or deteriorating, or not as complete or as intact as imagined.

To be fair this is not a situation exclusive to the QVMAG as many large 'musingplaces' that have been collecting for as long as the QVMAG face challenges to do with the management of their collections. More to the point current institutional governance in a 21st Century context at the QVMAG belongs more to the 19th Century and the institution 'colonial foundations' – sadly.

When management self-directs, self-regulates and ultimately self-assesses that is where you will find the box with a ticking noise inside – almost inevitably.

Basically, albeit speculatively and from experience on my own part, the QVMAG'S collection policy fails because it is designed by management in relative isolation from governance and funding sources: .

• For the purposes of convenient and sometimes discretionary administrative processing; 
• To allow for elastic and discretionary interpretation of ‘purposefulness’ by management; 
• To afford governance the opportunities to assure itself of its appropriateness without critical review; and 
• To (given the inbuilt elasticity) be a tool to avoid serious/meaningful critical review; and
• Despite the provisions of SECTION 65 of the Tasmanian Local Govt. Act which all by itself it has worrying discretionary implications.

All this said, there is no implied or suggested malevolence in regard to ‘staff et al’ albeit that the opportunities need to be recognised and considered but as 2nd/3rd/ /4th order concerns.

In a public ‘musingplace’ its collections policy is the cornerstone upon which it’s credibility is built and around which its ‘accountability’ is determined – functionally – in order that ‘trust’ can be invested in it. This should always be front of mind when framing and reviewing strategic directions and policies.

'Trusteeship' demands ‘trustworthiness’ and elections by design – and in all kinds of circumstances just do not, arguably cannot, deliver ‘trust by deeming’.

An ‘audit’ against this background, as is being suggested and projected, and ikt will be a very good starting point but the audit needs to be independent, forensic and importantly transparent – it's being assumed that it will be.

The audit will need to be credible in order that the ‘trust’ in the QVMAG’s governance and management can be restored – and in all too many cases, won.

Currently, the institutions governance and management has become fundamentally blurred and arguably in ways that compromise its status as an ‘public musingplace’ in receipt of ‘public monies’.

The missing ‘Brett Whiteley WAVE V drawing’, the ‘Mesibov slides’ and the apparent lack of documentation across some/many/various collections, and quite probably a number of other issues relative to the ‘collections’ policies’ sound a timely alert right now.

Whatever, in the end collection policies is a matter for ‘governance’ – a matter for trustees/aldermen/governors not management .

Launceston's ratepayers and residents might well be able to look forward with interest as to where the suggested audit ultimately leads. 

Ray Norman

Researcher & Cultural Geographer

Sept 2018

HAS LAUNCESTON'S COUNCIL GOT THE FIRST CLUE

Launceston's population is shrinking, Tasmania's is growing and Australia's is exploding. It is more than obvious to a lot of traders in Launceston's CBD that it's council has lost the plot. Many are threatening to "vote this mob out" but it's not quite that easy.

You do have find candidates to vote for who have the intelligence, the experience and who are willing to do more than attend meetings and collect their allowances. Look around you and scrutinise your voting slips.

Also, be prepared to consider the proposition that the local government election  model in Tasmania is broken. 

Also, ask yourself when did you hear personally from an alderperson about something important to you? Did this Council consult you before putting the city in debt to its present $20Million level? Do you think that it is good business to spend our rates almost anywhere else than locally? 

On performance, do you think that this crop of alderpeople have the capacity to recognise expert advice when they hear it? Do they ever look for local expertise and respect it? Do you think they care about the level of rates you pay? Do you ever think that services might be delivered more effectively?

Ask yourself such questions as the city's business community now is – perhaps belatedly. There is a way forward but ask yourself if this current Council knows which way that might be or are even interested in actually looking for it? Are they holding themselves accountable in any way for the situation the city finds itself in NOW? 

In fact, ask yourself the big question. Has the current crop of alderpeople got the bottle to be open, transparent and honest with their constituency? Indeed, have they been?

ELECTION SIGNAGE A CONTENTIOUS MATTER

Election signage is increasingly contentious but there are regulations in Tasmania to protect us from the inappropriate and unacceptable use of 'election signage' but who are these laws/regulations for? 

NOT JOHN CITIZEN THAT'S FOR SURE!

Look around you as you go about town and if what you see offends you get in touch with your council and if you feel strongly enough call your council and complain. Be prepared to be told that must complain in writing. Research tells us that 67% of people will not do that! A lot of work for too little gain.

This is of course is what the 'signage violators' depend upon it is all part of the strategy. SO, if you really want to send these people DIRECTLY and send them a message telling them that their behaviours are unacceptable and consequently you'll not be voting for them on the grounds that cannot adhere to regulations and laws that they seek to make or have made. IF the .signage is discourteous make it known that you find it so.

However you do need to check your fact in regard to regulations and you have the right to ask.

If they set a poor example be more insistent and persistent ESPECIALLY if they should know better!

 CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD

THE LAUNCESTON COUNCIL $100 PLEDGE

Aldermen committed to the status quo will give you reason upon reason in regard to how this is not possible and that it runs against standard practice. That is in fact okay and there is no such thing as 'standard practice' in fiscal matters any way. Risk taking is never the safe way, but the 'safe way' is all too often the worst way – especially so cumulatively.

Think about it, if you have been managing your affairs in a particular way and your business is failing, what kind of fool would you need to be to keep on doing what you've always done.

Apologies to those who run their lives the same way without question!

The $100 pledge is quite simple, and once taken there will be all kinds of flow-on consequences. Strangely, once you start to look for ways forward towards a more sustainable fiscal regime all kinds of option present themselves. Quite possibly, more than the pledge itself can actually be delivered.

Traditionally, Council budgets are framed by 'the operatives' who decide what sort of money they want for a comfortable life delivering a program, add a contingency amount and conscript the funds required. 

IT'S TIME FOR CHANGE. It is time that 'operational wisdom' is put through its paces and now would be a good time to start.

CULTURAL LANDSCAPING THEATRE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN LAUNCESTON

When the punters at a Council meeting start asking difficult questions about theatre and its future in the city you do have to start pinching yourself. In the Mercury prophesies of dodgy stuff going on, or likely to, at UTAS and  with 'theatre', Launceston's Council meetings will have a little bit more touchiness in the air than usual. Funnily enough you could smell air freshener and grease paint sin the air.

UTAS seems to have been saying one thing and planning another. And as time progresses, of least concern, are the city's ratepayers and residents and their aspirations for a viable 'cultural landscape'. Various people – UTAS staff, students, alumni, etc. – worry about just where the university, on its northern campus, is heading and with what consequences for the region's 'cultural landscape'.

It's taking eons for UTAS to put up a credible 'business plan' for the university proposed operation and its programs to be offered in the north. Progress towards anything actually happening is glacial. With a Federal election looming for possibly May 2019, and with policies being thrown overboard willy-nilly in Canberra you do have wonder if there will be yet another shift in thinking. 

As a UTAS alumni said upon hearing about UTAS's latest announcement, "you really do have to wonder if anyone is thinking clearly when $200Million is being talked about to move a university a few kilometres when the river rates pretty much the same as a third world sewer and waterway." Interesting point and an unlikely vote winner!

The City of Launceston's Council represents a population of, apparently, something in the order of 69K who have various expectations of the 'cultural landscape' in which they live, work, recreate, study, raise families etc. There is precious little evidence that this council and its aldermen pay all that much attention to regional people's cultural aspirations and realities. As for UTAS, its strategies relative to its proposed 'drama course' changes and in the context 'the state's north' is both bewildering and bemusing laced as it is with so much bureaucratic 'balderdash'.

The evidence on the ground is that the 'planners and their unthinking fellow travellers' are both clueless and careless. I'll happily retract that IF I could be shown a credible 'business plan' that had been produced in-house at UTAS. Even so, I'd eat my hat IF they had anything to do with concerns on the part of UTAS for anything resembling 'cultural landscaping' and/or cultural-cum-civic engagement relative to the region. 

Given the chain dragging at Town Hall and with an agenda for a 'Cultural Strategy' set well away from 'around the council table' the shaping of the city's 'cultural landscaping' seems to have handed over to almost anyone for hire from elsewhere. Somehow, anyone from elsewhere who needn't be 'engaged' in cultural production and/or related cultural networking might well get 'the call'. Moreover, their briefings are typically 'commercial in confidence' or something similar.

With a changed – shrinking/diminishing?–  'industrial landscape' in northern Tasmania there is a paradigm shift in play whilst the nostalgia for past glories lingers in the memories of a dwindling demographic. It is of some concern that this is the background for the bewilderment of just about everyone else trying to make 'their' sense of the region – new arrivals, visitors, tourists, et al. 

If Local Govt. is about anything, it is 'placemaking and placescaping' and imaging that a 'place' can sustain itself in some kind of time warp is fanciful. That's so albeit that the City of Launceston, on the evidence, is entertaining a view that it can construct a 'cultural landscape' and plug it in as if it were a new electrical appliance or some such thing.

The 'Tamar/Esk Region's' cultural landscape is what it is and it is the way the communities have shaped it – one way or another over time. The region is no longer an agrarian cum industrial landscape shaped by economic imperatives in relative isolation. Certainly, in significant ways its a cultural landscape shaped in secession by the First Tasmanians, colonialism, industrial agriculture, industrialisation, globalism plus the histories and heritage bound up in the aftermath of all this – and increasingly in a global context. 

However, what is the current understanding of the city's 'cultural landscape', that is the vision held by the city's decision makers? It appears to be relatively clear that 'cultural tourism' is likely to figure large in the regions economy looking ahead. How well is this being understood?

As it stands 'the city' lacks an articulate and sophisticated understanding of its 'cultural landscape' . Consequently a vision of what it's 'placemaking tasks' is needed, might be needed, indeed must be held and articulated. Sadly and unsurprisingly, on the evidence, there is no apparent understanding of the city's base line cultural realities or dynamics. 

For example and interestingly it seems that the 'cultural vision' is to:

• Have a museum and art gallery funded by constituents and the State Govt;
• Investigate the feasibility of the QVMAG delivering"best value";
• Investigate the feasibility of being funded by the State Govt equal to the TMAG;
• Seek $3Million recurrent funding from the State Govt;
• Implement a "Cultural Strategy" in 2018 to more effectively leverage the city's "cultural assets" (yet to be sighted!)
• Provide $3Million "seed funding" for a cultural infrastructure project such as a "public art trail".

'Culture' is a much more expansive and multidimensional concept than any of this suggests.

Under SECTION 65 of the Tasmanian Local Govt. Act it is a requirement of Council that strategic decisions making must be carried out upon 'expert advice'. If the text above comes out of "expert advice" it is apparent that its 'author/s', whoever they may be, lack credible expertise. Much more concerning is the city's alderpeople being unable to detect the flaws and weaknesses in the 'advice'. The knock-on cum trickle-down being the city is seemingly imagining itself in  a 'cultural vacuum'. 

Apparently UTAS is similarly placed strategically. It is therefore no surprise that those charged with delivery of a credible 'business case', or an implementable 'business plan', haven't actually been able to deliver on that expectation. 

That UTAS might not be able to, or even be interested in, contextualising it's course offerings relative student and community aspirations is disappointing to say the very least. Nonetheless, this kind of hubris has become the expected modus operandi.

It's all somewhat mystifying given that UTAS has succeeded in talking Launceston's alderpeople into gifting public land to the university along with apparent unspoken commitments and assurances to provide additional infrastructural support consequent to 'the gift'. All this to be funded by ratepayers unless the funds are imagined to be falingl from the sky. UTAS's accountability and transparency in relation to future 'university offerings' in Launceston are falling well short of what should be the case given all that is at stake – and given that it is a public institution in receipt of community largess.

For context the QAVMAG conscripts something in the order of $4Million or something like $130 plus per rateable property annually. Sponsors, donors, et al over 125 years plus have contribute to building a $240Million cultural, scientific and social community resource that is a significant element of the 'national estate'.  The institution employs something in the order of 50 people meaning that something like 150 jobs exist in the region for people with skills that otherwise wouldn't exist. That's the positive story. 

Sadly, this is counter balanced by opaque and functionally unaccountable governance by 'the council' – the Trustees being the city's Aldermen. With Local Govt Elections but weeks away this component of the city's budget needs exposure given that the region's 'cultural landscape' is increasingly what ratepayers', residents', business people, et al will be depending upon for their well being.

Candidates for council's upcoming elections are largely unaware of the 'cultural stewardship function' imbedded in their aspirations – especially in regard to the QVMAG. Given all that is at stake voters need to questioning all candidates – incumbent and new – about their understandings of this aspect of their role as an Alderman/Trusttee of the city's/region's cultural estate and their accountability relevant to that.

With the revelation that the QVMAG had "lost" a component of it's collections. This single item has a potential value of $20K to $30K yet most concerningly is its potential to become 'lost' within the institution's collections management and governance regime without too much of a consiquence. The incident is simultaneously concerning in regard to the lost cultural material and all that is invested in QVMAG collections. The strategic governance weaknesses all this brings to public attention must not be made light of. After this there are many more uncomfortable questions that sponsors, donors and ratepayers will and should be asking.

Without accountable and transparent governance the city's ratepayers and residents are being neither adequately serviced nor appropriately represented. 

Ray Norman

September 2018

Launceston

ENDNOTES & LINKS – CLICK HERE

LAUNCESTON BEING SOLD OUT BY UTAS YET AGAIN

WATCH THIS SPACE AS THIS STORY UNFOLDS

QUESTION STILL HANGING

• What's the Mayor been telling the VC and visa verso?
• What has the Council representative to UTAS been telling them about such a diabolical strategic move in contradiction of the city's 'cultural hub' concept?
• When is Council going to share its 'cultural hub strategy' with its constituency?
• Indeed will it be sharing anything in regard to this concept BEFORE constituents vote?

CAR PARKING: THE BIG QUESTIONS

click here

Is is a simple question that is quite concerning. Do not ask anyone at Town Hall – elected representative or functionary – as they'll find a whole lot of things more important to do than "answer your #&•!'> inane questions".  BUT SORRY, we're paying, you're representing or doing what our representatives require of you and we need to know if we should still be asking our representative to do the job for longer.

Cutting to the chase, the council has borrowed a whole bunch of money in RATEPAYER'S NAME that ratepayers will have to repay and not necessarily for a purpose they understand or agree with. So, to reiterate given that the council has made the loan, spent the money and sometimes carelessly, and for the dubious benefit of a section of the community:

1. How long is it going to take to pay off these loans? 3,5,7, yrs or the never-never?
2. Who are the beneficiaries of the loan?
3. Who is actually paying these loans off, how are they to do it, when and for how long?

AND do not tell us that "it is all in the budget", clearly set out, etc. etc. because it is not, well not in an accessible way.

Then there're the question to do with:

1. Where is the parking to be located?
2. How accessible will it be?
3. How is parking to be managed in the city and by whom?
4. Who is it being provided for and to what end?
5. How will it help deal with the downward population trend trend?
6. When will ratepayers and residents be included in council discourse?

CARS, PARKING AND BLOODY QUESTIONS

CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION

As they say, there are some questions that you just cannot put off answering. This week in Canberra there'll be enough unanswered to keep a silly quizmaster on his toes. As the Local Govt. elections continue to loom there'll be quite a few at Launceston's Town Hall that given the chance, euphemistically, well they'll 'be left for the keeper'. Even so, they're not going to go away anytime soon.

If as reported in the Examiner today the City of Launceston owned C H Smith Carpark (CHS) has 302 car spaces and 80 are to be occupied by 80 Council staff spaces relocated from Cimitiere St there will ultimately be 220 spaces at CHS:

1. How many of these spaces will be made available to employees of CHS Govt. Offices?
2. For how long will the 80[?] Cimitiere St. spaces be available to the public and what is the             predicted annual income from that site for 80 or whatever number of spaces;
3. Given that Council has sold a portion of the land/spaces to a developer
      • for how long will a total of 80[?] Cimitiere St. spaces be available to the public; and
      • what annual income is anticipated for parking for this site and for how long?
4. Given that it has been projected that something in the order of 580 CoL Staff with 80 being allocated a car space at CHS:
      • how many, if any, car spaces are to be allocated to any of these people? and
      • for what annual fee per space?
5. Given that CoL/CHS car spaces will be costing approx. $3Million, or $30K a space,
       • how long is it anticipated that receipts from parking fees will take to repay the loan? and
       • over what period 5, 7 or more years – starting when and completed when?

In addition, when/if CoL looses the estimated $80Kplus from Willis St what will that mean for the city's parking and the Council budget? And the questions go on and on and on!

LINKS

• https://www.examiner.com.au/story/5628657/council-to-move-fleet-into-ch-smith-car-park/
• https://www.examiner.com.au/story/5487546/completion-of-c-h-smith-site-pegged-for-end-of-year/
• https://www.examiner.com.au/story/5491859/launcestons-service-tasmania-to-move-into-c-h-smith-building/

A QUESTION FOR LAUNCESTON'S ALDERMEN

UPDATE http://www.population.net.au/launceston-population/

Population Growth of Launceston

Looking back last seven years Launceston’s population, the growth rate is not very promising, only last year recorded a positive growth, other years are negative. If so, the drop is not significant range from 6 to 129 people. What most likely cause the population drop is due to employment rate in this city.

Year	Population	Growth rate
2011	67,154	n/a
2012	67,025	-0.19%
2013	66,894	-0.20%
2014	66,805	-0.13%
2015	66,799	-0.01%
2016	66,864	0.10%
2017	66,810	-0.08%

THANK YOU  Ald. Gibson for your prompt response.

He says.

• We need to do more to promote Launceston's liveability.
• We need to promote and facilitate affordable housing options.
• We need to promote and facilitate incentives for development.