City of Launceston Transparency And Accoutability

Finally, after multiple attempts to receive answers to a series of questions relevant to 'cultural funding' within the City of Launceston these responses are now on the record and on a Council Agenda – albeit that any discussion relative to the responses seems unlikely. 

There are other questions outstanding that the Launceston Concerned Citizens Network have put to Council and they are on record on this site – [Link] • [Link] and here  [Link]. 

There has been considerable resistance in regard to providing this relatively straight forward information – information that should be on the public record and relatively available. 

The responses below are arguably inadequate and consequently seem to demonstrate that Launceston's Council operation maintains a default position of automatic confidentiality – a position reinforced by SECTION 62 and used in ways that mitigate against 'accountability and transparency'.

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

COUNCIL MINUTES Thursday 30 May 2019 P/49 19

https://www.launceston.tas.gov.au/Agendas-Minutes/30-May-2019

CORPORATE SERVICES DIRECTORATE

ITEMS 19.1 Proposed Budget 2019/2020 Consultation Reponses

FILE NO: SF6641

AUTHOR: Paul Gimpl (Chief Financial Officer) 

DIRECTOR: Louise Foster (Director Corporate Services)

DECISION STATEMENT: To consider the 2019/2020 Budget public consultation process and the responses submitted. RECOMMENDATION: That Council: 1. receives and agrees on responses to the submissions received, as follows: (a) Mr Ian Routley (b) Mr Ted Sands (c) Treva Alen (x3) 2. notes that the Council Meeting of 13 June 2019 is the intended date on which the budget will be adopted and the rate will be set. Ms L Foster (Director Corporate Services) and Mr P Gimpl (Chief Financial Officer) were in attendance to answer questions of Council in respect of this

Agenda Item. Mr Ted Sands spoke to the Recommendation

DECISION: 30 May 2019 MOTION Moved Councillor D H McKenzie, seconded Councillor J Finlay.

That the Motion, as per the Recommendation to Council, be adopted.

CARRIED 11:0 FOR VOTE:

1. Mayor Councillor A M van Zetten,
2. Deputy Mayor Councillor D C Gibson,
3. Councillor J Finlay,
4. Councillor A E Dawkins,
5. Councillor N D Daking,
6. Councillor D H McKenzie,
7. Councillor K P Stojansek,
8. Councillor P S Spencer,
9. Councillor J G Cox,
10. Councillor A G Harris and
11. Councillor T G Walker

NB: T Alen is the 'email network communications coordinator' for LCC NEWS [https://lcc63.blogspot.com/ ...networktcc63@gmail.com!  ....treva.alen@bigpond.com] 

QUESTIONS and RESPONSES:

The following questions (typed as received), submitted to Council in writing on 6 June 2019 by Mr Ray Norman, have been answered by Mr Michael Stretton (General Manager). It should be noted that these same questions were submitted under another name (Treva Alen) as part of the Council's 2019/2020 Annual Plan and Budget Consultation process and were answered at the Council Meeting dated 30 May 2019. Given that the questions have been re-submitted, further responses are provided below:

Given the proposed budget allocation of $7.9Million or approx. $151K per week that is largely funded from rate demands:

Questions: 

1. How many staff are employed full-time and part-time in this area of activity overall and within the aegis of the Cultural Unit'?

Response: The Cultural Unit includes one employee who reports directly to the Director Creative Arts and Cultural Services. The main purpose of the unit has been the development of the Council's inaugural Cultural Strategy.

2. How many staff are employed full-time and part-time at the QVMAG?

Response: The QVMAG has an employment status of 27 full-time and 36 part-time employees (46.8 full-time equivalents).

3. How many staff are employed full-time and part-time Princess Theatre?

Response: The Princess Theatre has an employment status one fulltime employee.

4. How many staff are employed full-time and part-time in Cultural Unit?

Response: The Cultural Unit has an employment status of one employee.

5. Given that the QVMAG BUDGET represents something in the order of 5.5% [ $6.2Mil] of the city's recurrent budget, how does this component of 'the cultural spend' compare with comparable cities elsewhere?

Response: The Council's services and structure in the Creative Arts and Cultural Services Directorate are unique and it is not possible to directly compare and contrast against other Councils in this respect. That said, the Council benchmarks itself against Tasmanian and mainland Councils across its overall function. The Council reports its performance in annual reports, both specifically for the QVMAG and for the overall Council itself.

6. Similarly, how does Launceston's total 'cultural spend' [$7,9 Mil ... 7%] – plus $644K events spend – compare with comparable jurisdictions elsewhere in Australia.

Response: The Council's services and structure in the Creative Arts and Cultural Services Directorate are unique and it is not possible to directly compare and contrast against other Councils in this respect. That said, the Council benchmarks itself against Tasmanian and mainland Councils across its overall function. The Council reports its performance in annual reports, both specifically for the QVMAG and for the overall Council itself.

7. Given that the Cultural Unit has been envisioned as a 'purposeful operation', going forward what are current outcomes that would be its measures of success in 1 year, 2 years, 3 years 5 years?

Response: The outcomes of the Cultural Unit will be refined following the completion of the Cultural Strategy later this year. Once the Cultural Strategy has been completed a more specific and detailed work plan will be developed for the Cultural Unit.

8. Given the additional $400K plus in the QVMAG'S recurrent budget allocation and the proposed $5.3K Capital expenditure, what are the anticipatable and measurable outcome flowing from this expenditure?

Response: The additional expenditure is largely related to the audit and digitisation of the collection, which will commence in 2019/2020. This will be the first audit of the collection, which has occurred in the history of the institution.

9. What specific 'productivity dividends' can be expected for cultural outputs in the Municipality as a consequence of the implementation of the 'Cultural Unit' and other efficiencies being implemented?  How and when are the 'dividends' going to be accessed and by whom?

Response: Local Government Councils do not pay dividends and it is not proposed that the Cultural Unit will alter this. The Unit will create the Cultural Strategy which will provide an overarching framework to guide the future direction of the City's cultural entities and assets.

10. What grant funds and/or sponsorships going forward are being sought in this area for cultural production, publications and/or research, and from whom?

Response: The priorities for grant funding and/or sponsorship applications will be determined following the completion of the Cultural

Strategy.

11. What research projects are currently in place and when is it anticipated that there will be an outcome or interim report?

Response: The Unit is currently in the process of completing the Cultural Strategy, which has involved a significant amount of public engagement and research.

12. What strategies are in place, and anticipated, towards developing incoming generative initiatives via, or by, the City's cultural producers, et al via the 'Cultural Unit'.?

Response: It is highly likely that there will be a range of positive economic outcomes as a consequence of actions arising from the Cultural Strategy. However, income generation in not a primary motivation of the strategy or the Cultural Unit.

13. Given the relative magnitude of the proposed operational budget/s what is the proposed reporting schedule to Council?

Response: Progress against the Annual Plan and budget is reported to the Council on a quarterly basis.

Questions on Notice - Mr Ray Norman - Cultural Unit and Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery - 6 June 2019 City of Launceston COUNCIL AGENDA Thursday 27 June 2019

\

News from a coffee cup or two

POST REMOVED

SEE https://launcestonlittlewhispers.blogspot.com/

NOTICE: City of Launceston ACCOUNTABILITY & TRANSPARENCY

GO TO: https://col63233000.blogspot.com/2019/06/re-saved-to-cm-re-launceston-council.html

Monumental Suff Up At Town Hall

Just how do you stuff things up as much as it appears they have been with Launceston's 'planning'? Despite not knowing how its done, or even why for the most part, there are inexplicable events going down at Town Hall – seemingly well away from the sunlight.

The Gorge Hotel project is at the very least a monumental stuff up, a bureaucratic stuff up, of proportions unlikely to be equalled elsewhere.

The news yesterday that the 'planners' at Town Hall had stuffed up in just about every way imaginable, actually it was not news. This stuff has been going on for so long it defies belief that it has taken this long to reveal itself in the apparently spectacular way it did yesterday at Albert's Hall.

Just what have these 'planners' been telling developers like 'The Gorge Hotel Developers' on the quiet? What are they telling them about the real risks? Where do they imagine they'll be living when something goes all so wrong? Do they imagine that nobody will come after them?

Indeed, what messages are going out to the world about what's what in Launceston?

Are Councillors being truly warned about the actual risks of 'climate change'? Do these 'planners' actually get down to informing themselves about demography, economics, geology, heritage issues, climatology, environmental issues, etc.? More to the point, are they actually across Tasmania's 'planning laws' or indeed anything remotely like 'best practice' in public administration?

The representors at Albert Hall finally kicked back and told 'the planners' that enough was enough. Oh, and yes they told them that their performance has been found wanting. However, its the people who pay their salaries – ratepayers and residents – who are most likely to hurt and in this case, and hurt a lot. 

And then there are the developers, and not putting too fine a point on it, they are more than likely to be 'pissed-off-big-time' given the circumstances. 

Yet it seems that the community's representatives at Town Hall are happy enough to stand haplessly by watching all this unfold. Why might they be doing that? Whose 'expert advice' are they relying upon at times like this? 

We now know that that they do not have the time to oversight the tender processes. What are they doing instead? What will they do in this case and will they say anything out loud around the table?

What follies are Launceston's 'planners' and Councillors entertaining?  Is there more to this stuff up than meets the eye? Indeed, is there more of this stuff yet to be revealed? Who is looking? Who is caring? Way, way too many questions looking for answers.

T Alen

SEE MEDIA RELEASE ... Click Here

HERITAGE SOC. REPRESENTATION ... Click Here

EXAMINER STORY ... Click Here

PROJECT ANNOUNCED ... Click Here

MEDIA RELEASE GORGE HOTEL LAUNCESTON

6 June 2019

More than 20 members of the public attended a meeting convened by City of Launceston Council for representors at Launceston’s Albert Hall meeting room today.

These people had submitted formal representations to the City of Launceston Council in connection with a Development Application for a controversial 39.5M high hotel building fronting Paterson, Margaret and Brisbane Streets in Launceston.

After more than two hours of presenting their concerns to Council’s planning staff, a unanimous motion was carried. The motion states:  

1. Criticised Council’s actions in advertising and exhibiting the Development Application; and
2. Expressed no confidence in the ability of City of Launceston Council staff to competently assess the Development Application. 

The meeting noted with concern that representations made in relation to the application had already been advertised and re-advertised on three occasions

Furthermore, the meeting contested the Development Application given that it failed to comply with Council’s legislated processes.

Moreover, the meeting noted that the planning staff’s acknowledged failure to correctly notify adjoining property owners.

The meeting also called upon Council to have the Application assessed by an independent party.

Council staff present were asked to convey the feelings of the meeting to the General Manager and Councillors.

The Development Application is due to be considered by Council at its next meeting June 13.

For more information please contact Ian Routley 03 6331 9406

A QUESTION OF ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY

This is possibly the most troubling item I’ve read in the Examiner for some time. Here we have a Councillor who stood for his spot on the Council “to work for the ratepayers” and when he sees that something needs fixing his fellow Councillors virtually slap him down. 

A witness in the gallery when the motion was being discussed reports that almost to a person the Councillors were saying they couldn’t support the motion mainly because they couldn’t give Council any more time and that they supported things the way they are. Patronising!

If Cr Spencer was seeing the world another way, and had taken the initiative to move for change, you do have to wonder what he is seeing and how serious it might be. 

This is the process that oversees the ways ratepayer’s money is spent after all. It is a process that should be above reproach and now there must be questions. 

Cr Spencer believed the councillors around the table had enough knowledge to complete the tenders process and the review of expenditure is their job. It's one of the things for which they receive a stipend.

It is not like they are volunteers and Cr. Gibson’s “audit” must be at arm’s-length and independent, otherwise uncomfortable questions are likely to float to the surface.

As for Cr Dawkins asserting disbanding the committee was "dangerous" and for the reasons she is reported as proffering, well it beggars belief. 

And Cr. Finlay’s confidence is as likely as not as misplaced as it might be well placed. No room for change here!

Launceston’s ratepayers have not been well served by its Councillors in open debate 'around the table’ on what seems to have been a contentious issue. If wasn't, it is bound to be.

This may well be why they do it so rarely in the clear light of day. Apparently Council meeting can be as short as 17 mins with all the debate and decision making going on in ‘workshops’ a week earlier. 

Let us see what Cr Gibson’s “audit” exposes, to whom, by whom and when. 

Ray Norman

A move to disband the City of Launceston council's tender review committee by one of its councillors has been lost.

The motion, put forward by Councillor Paul Spencer, was lost after he was the only person to vote for it at Thursday's council meeting.

However, deputy mayor Danny Gibson moved an alternate motion for an audit of the committee that passed unanimously. It is understood there was a review of the committee scheduled for the end of last year.

Councillor Tim Walker seconded the original motion for the purposes of having the discussion.

The original motion asked for all tenders more than $10,000 to be brought to the council for a decision, rather than the panel.

Councillor Jim Cox, who chairs the tender committee, said the committee was the third step in the tender process after the council calls for project tenders and tenders submitted, then it goes before a panel of council officers.

Cr Spencer believed the councillors around the table had enough knowledge to complete the tenders.

Councillor Andrea Dawkins said disbanding the committee based on the experience around the table was "dangerous" because not all the councillors would be the council in the future.

Councillors Hugh McKenzie and Cr Gibson, who have both sat on the committee previously, said they had seen continued improvement in how the process works. Councillor Janie Finlay said she also had confidence in the current tender process.

Councillor Nick Daking and Cr Spencer also sit on the committee.

All councillors spoke about the item, except Councillor Karina Stojansek. Councillor Rob Soward was not at the meeting