Machiavelli is pulling someone's chain at Town Hall

The politicians in the CANBERRAbubble might well be tossing and turning looking for a way forward. Likewise, their 'mates' in the LAUNCESTONbubble have got their fingers crossed and hoping that there is a way forward that looks 'something like what it is now'. 

Sadly, what's being missed is that 'the purpose' in all this stuff is serving and representing constituencies!

The plot is well and truly lost not only in Canberra but also in Launceston/Tasmania. Well people, in the end it is not about you as representatives. Yes people, in fact its all about the people in the places whom you represent. Hello!

Basil Fitch's call to 'keep party politics out of local government' is more than timely. The speculation that a branch of the Liberal Party, if the speculation has substance, the branch has encouraged, and apparently  endorsed, Mayor van Zetten as a mayoral candidate for the upcoming elections with Ald. Hugh McKenzie apparently as the endorsed Deputy candidate. 

Ratepayers and residents are likely to hear 'party political proponents' bleating that this isn't so but they, whoever they are, might be inclined to say that mightn't they.

For anyone who has been looking at what the cosy snuggle-ups between Launceston's Mayor and the Minister has resulted in will note that LAUNCESTONIANS are in debt – something like $20million in fact – and it's a legacy Launcestonians are stuck with for a long time ahead. 

The calculation being, seemingly, that none of it will touch the incumbents at Town Hall. They let the situation slip by while they dozed-off around the table and/or chose to look the other way on while taking their stipends.

Launcestonians need to be aware of the sort of things going on behind behind 'closed doors' at Town Hall and elsewhere. In fact it is more than worrying what has been happening in 'Closed Council Meetings' and in 'Machiavellian Meetings' in Newstead or wherever. 

Launcetonians need to be looking very, very carefully at the toxic circumstances in which they find themselves – very very carefully indeed.

Ray Norman

August 2018

http://www.dpac.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/380427/Good_Governance_Guide_June_2018.pdf

Civic Planning And The Spectre Of The Flood

 

click on images to enlarge

Severe weather warning for Tasmania including damaging winds and high tides

Given that Launceston is located at the confluence of a tidal estuary and two rivers Launcestonians should be able to take Wednesday's King Tide and a relatively minor flood event in their stride. Yet in should alarm the city's planners and alderpeople but it seems not.

Around and about in the underground 'newsrooms' the news is that the 'punters' are speculating upon what might have been – what could have been – in this or that scenario. None were all that far away from what was right there with the levy being reported as being just 30cm away from being breached and this place being flooded, and over there the water came much closer than expected, and so on. Clearly down at Town Hall there was a deal less complacency than there might have been. Had it not been for the looming council elections there might well have been no reason to worry at all.

It is bad enough to be distracted by such concerns, and even well into a term, it is as well to "bite your tongue" for fear of "frightening the horses". However at election time it is worth a politician's time to remember that, as someone said somewhere, “rats survive so well because they are rats. They know when to keep quiet and they know when to squeal.” If one had payed  close enough attention to this week's tides and flood it should have served as a salutary warning.

Today's Launcestonians have been left a 'colonial legacy' that no matter how much we want to look away and think of England the city suffers from serial civic planning follies. Just because something has been done, and it's worked, well sort of, up until now, it doesn't mean that it was ever enough. This week it was 'just enough' again yet the 'finger crossing' folly persists.

As Lismore (Far Nth NSW) [LINK] discovered to its chagrin in March 2017 when you look away and cross your fingers a flood is just as likely to come along and defy your best wishes and deliver a disaster. Lismore and Launceston share geographical circumstance [LINK] in so much as they sit at the confluence of extensive river catchments. Yes, Lismore's rainfall is higher than Launceston's and yes it does flood there more often but the crossing of fingers and the 'she'll-be-right' world view wound up costing that community 'zillions', the extent of which is still being assessed.

So, the lessons are there as to why local governance has an obligation to do the due diligence based local knowledge when it comes to floods. For a very long time Launceston's civic planners and 'governors' have come up wanting. Sorry, this is not what you want to hear when you've just got away with past mistakes and you're looking to keep your allowances, and you have so, so much invested in the status quo, and the upcoming elections are so very close.

Lismore's university is on the city's high ground and the idea of moving it to the CBD is not on the agenda. This university sees more profitable ways to develop their operation in their current location taking note of their geography. Interestingly, Lismore's university campus is about the same distanced away from its CBD as is Launceston's.

Conversely, the University of Tasmania and the City of Launceston's aldermen insist that the economics stack up for moving their operation onto a tidal flat. Also, it seems that the failing 'community representatives' think that its worth doing it and slugging its ratepayers more, and more on the strength of shonky advice most of which was hatched 'elsewhere' . For the most part the hatching was done by 'blowin bureaucrats' who have already moved elsewhere with their pockets full.

Just who is doing, or has done, the due diligence and why should anyone believe them? One also wonders why the 'business case' for a spurious move that would need extraordinary expenditure is consistently 'due soon'.  However, there are additional planning issues that are more complex than any of this suggests.

IT IS TIME FOR A REALITY CHECK AND REAL CHANGE

ITS TIME FOR SOME CREDIBLE PLANNING

Local Government No Place For Party Politics

It has been a much spruiked mantra that Local Govt and party politics do not belong together. A lot of candidates will tell you that they "do not belong to the party" yet they demonstrate their party allegiances in so, so many unsubtle ways. Also, at a local level over time everyone through their actions and alliances give the game away.

The GREENS were among the first to overtly announce their candidates unambiguously as party members  when it was a local government candidacy. Other parties have been less up front and the 'rumour mills' rumble with background noise when their members and 'fellow travellers' put their hands up for election in local government. These things get to be the worst kept secrets in town – and especially so when the favours start to be handed out. 

The apparently increasing number of 'Closed Council' meetings is cause for serious concern when all this starts to come together in worrying sways. The alderpeople/councillors who bring these meetings on should be ringing alarm bells when they slink off to make decisions away from the public gaze.

The deep problem is that once elected by the community as 'community representatives' the party aligned alderpeople/councillors tend to represent their party rather than their community – and all too often. Additionally, these alderpeople's/councillor's propensity to curry favour with their State and Federal party colleagues, mates even, does not always work out well for a lot of ratepayers and residents. When the development imperatives shifts  focus  alarm bells should start to ring.

                           . 

All of this is a contentious issue and it is about time that ratepayers and residents challenged candidates and incumbent representatives more fulsomely. This should not only be at election time but also throughout their now rather longish term. If they manage to wangle themselves past the issue and find themselves in office it is almost open slather for up to four years. 

Politics is sometimes a rather nasty business and there is no place for 'the nasty stuff' at the close quarters local governance needs to operate in.

None of this is really new or even an serious issue if aldermen/councillors hold themselves 'accountable' and if they're 'transparent' in their decision making.  Sadly, currently with the smell of party politics in the air, what's put out as 'accountability' is far from it. Transparency likewise falls victim to 'party political' imperatives way too often.

Be alert because when things start to to go wrong it all gets to be rather alarming.

Ray Norman

August 2018

Albert's up and running in the 2018 Local Govt Stakes

Well the horse has hardly bolted but it's up and running in the 2018 'election stakes'! Today, Albert van Zetten has announced that he plans to stand for Mayor of Launceston.  Ald. Hugh McKenzie's candidacy for Deputy Mayor was announced a little earlier on 7LA and Ald. Janie Finlay was out of the blocks last week. So be it, and off we go.

It seems that the real issue is yet to really present itself given the sorry state of representational local governance in Tasmania. The burning issues across Tasmania is 'accountability and transparency' – A&T – and after that comes the affordability, or rather the increasingly unaffordability of rates, in some jurisdictions.

In the weeks ahead the issue of  A&T should top of ratepayer's list of concerns and the thing they should be looking into their memories for the evidence of relative to their experiences of A&T over the past four years. 

Local governance in Tasmania after a 'four year term' shows all the signs of dysfunction and serial disconnection from its constituency and it seems that it is increasingly so. Now is the time to test our perceptions of our local council's 'performance' and ask all the questions we have in mind and get some answers before we vote.

......................................

THE EXAMINER AND ALBERT VAN ZETTEN'S ANNOUNCEMENT.

Launceston’s longest serving mayor will recontest his position at the upcoming local government elections. ............. Albert van Zetten announced his plan to stand for the position of mayor on Friday. ............. “I really believe that stability is important and after many conversations I realised I still had passion,” he said. ............. Alderman van Zetten has been Launceston’s mayor for nearly 11 years and has been in local government for 13 years. ............. He said he had made it his life’s purpose to serve the city of Launceston in any way possible. ............. While he said sometimes the mayoral position can “feel like you’re on your own” he had been heartened by a number of people who called and asked him to stand again. ............. “I have had phone calls from the business community, and from other alderman, asking me to stand again.” ............. Alderman van Zetten will join Alderman Janie Finlay as announced candidates for the position of mayor. ............. An election for the City of Launceston council will be held in October.

SPIN, SPIN, SPIN, WHO IS PLAYING WHO?

Well, well, well down at Town Hall today it seems that the army of council ‘Spin Doctors’ are in danger of believing in themselves and taking themselves and their bureaucratic authority a bit too far. Just look at the spin in action as we head towards the 2018 council elections in October.

It’s reported that Basil Fitch returned to his post in the public gallery today and he asked the mayor his quota of questions. One was about him using his incumbency and ratepayers funding to promote himself on Television and elsewhere. 

Initially Ald. van Zetten claimed that he did not understand what Mr Fitch was talking about but aldermen around the table helped Mr Fitch out and confirmed the basis of his questioning. 

Possibly the mayor was oblivious to the potential to him being seen as operating outside the bounds of best practice and credible moral standards. Whatever, he seems quite comfortable about putting himself about without too much self reflection.

It seems that there are some serious question waiting to be answered. Like, does the councils public relations team favour the status quo and do they consequently structure their work towards maintain it? Then again, are aldermen actually aware of the 'spin doctors’ preferences and predilections? If so, do they actually see themselves as the recipients of back grounding to enhance or otherwise their election prospects?

This is a serious matter with serious implications but many ratepayers and residents are already laughing behind their hands in polite company, some wishing one thing, others wishing another. It is about time the mayor and aldermen did something about their appearing to look away when morals and ethics, and indeed accountability, comes under scrutiny in a discussion. The punters are not stupid – well not so very, very stupid.

Then there is the question of $14.8Million that is outstanding in regard to commitments not being met by ‘grant providers’ etc. Who in voter land is looking at that? In fact, which aldermen are taking any notice at all? 

Council’s placatory words are very worrying in the context of ratepayers now servicing $20Million in loans. With the expenditure of this money not being intended to generate income of any sort to relieve ratepayers of the debt well into the future. Just what is going on?

In addition, these loans are bound to create maintenance expenditure issues well after the life of this council’s term is over and at a time when the decision makers – elected and unelected – have left the scene with their superannuation and so on quite intact.

As per usual, the aldermen slunk off to do some decision making behind closed doors again today. The more this happens the more concerning it is. What cannot be said out in the open and who voted how? Were is the accountability?

Ratepayers and residents should keep these things front of mind when candidates come knocking and when  candidates are putting themselves up as credible contenders. In fact, if ratepayers are going to vote they had better confront candidates with some home truths or bear the consequences of their not taking strong enough action along with them to their graves.

Something has fallen off the back of a truck leading up to Local Govt elections

Well Launceston City Council is at it again. They're making decisions and keeping the public announcement 'on ice' so as to get the biggest bang for their buck very close to the election.  However, the council operation has within its fleet of trucks one that's likely to spill its load from time to time. To cut a long story short the announcement of the appointment of the new QVMAG's Director now ranks amongst among council worst kept secrets.

LCC News has it on the best possible advice that "Tracy Puklowski [has been appointed] as the new Director of Creative Arts and Cultural Services" and furthermore "Tracy is the current Director of the National Army Museum of New Zealand."

Reportedly Tracy Puklowski has a very strong understanding of modern museum practices through executive level roles in major institutions in New Zealand, which is strengthened by an established Australian and international network. Also, Ms Puklowski has impressive academic and managerial credentials.

LCC News' informant was able to say that currently, Ms Puklowski is a board member of the New Zealand Archives Council (Ministerial appointment), was chair of the International Council of Museums for New Zealand, a Council member of the Federation of International Human Rights Museums, and a board member of the Taupo Tongariro Conservation Board plus a number of other roles.

There is speculative talk of "exciting opportunities ahead" for the City of Launceston and its "cultural institutions". It is anticipated that Ms Puklowski will embrace those opportunities and "help deliver our highly anticipated Cultural Strategy".  

Apparently, Ms Puklowski will take up her new role from October 1, 2018.

With that said, this so-called "new role" seems only to be discussed in the hushed environment of a somewhat obscure inner network of movers and shakers down at Town Hall. If there is a 'strategy' to be implemented it is nothing that is being openly discussed around 'the table' at Town Hall. Apparently, this 'strategy' is also 'frightening the horses' destined to deliver on it.

So, if the 'functionaries' are uneasy, what about the 'conscripted investors'?  Ratepayers and residents are in the process of spending $20Million of borrowed money spent on infrastructure that has little or no prospect of directly generating one dollar. Launceston council's 'cargo cult' seems to have enlisted yet another bunch of 'true believers' who have, seemingly swallowed the line that 'money comes from Mars and falls from heaven in Launceston'.

That said, basically Ms Puklowski's appointment is very good news based on the information that's fallen LCC News' way. Once the anticipated 'cultural strategy' is shared with those who are going to have pay for it there may be reason to go dancing in the street. However, that's something that might have to wait until the polls are declared October 31 or thereabouts. By then, we may well know something of 'the strategy' and who is going to oversea it. We already know who is paying!

Links 
•  https://www.armymuseum.co.nz/about-us/
• https://www.tepapa.govt.nz/about/what-we-do

QUESTIONS TIME AT LAUNCESTON'S TOWN HALL

Possibly in celebration of the ‘Horse’s Birthday’, or the upcoming Council circus to be held next week in Albert Hall, Launceston’s Mayor, Ald. Albert van Zetten wondered out loud on the airwaves if he would/should/could/might stand for Mayor again – for a third time. Remember, he did that last time around and with all the advantages of an ‘incumbent’ he squeaked in again. Anyway, he is wondering again and it looks a lot like a cry for help. That is, a call out to anyone out there important enough who might back him up if he decides it’d be OK for him to take yet another turn at the trough. 

Or is it a cynical attempt to flush out the as yet unknown candidates and maybe even scare them off. You see a Mayoral candidate no longer needs prior council experience as once was the case. 

\Let’s take a look so far, and in the vernacular, and without any gloss being sprayed about. In the time he’s been at the trough he’s banked about ‘half a million bucks’ while the council operation has conscripted about $500million from ratepayers and residents. Likewise, his Deputy skimmed about a ‘quarter of a million bucks’ and all the others at the trough banked something like $140K each over the time. So, that’s the money bit in a nutshell. 

Another four years would set the Mayor up for yet another ‘half a million’ and at a time when limited tenure for elected representation in local government is being seriously discussed – and it needs to be. Likewise, what’s true and relevant for mayors trickles all the way down the line so far as the tenure issue is concerned. 

It's little wonder that there’re serious and pertinent questions to do with performance on the lips of those who’re picking up the tab – the ratepayers. 

Before going to some of these pertinent questions that ratepayers and residents might well be asking, the context against which they could be considered needs to be put. 

As a ‘civic operation’ that is designed as a ‘cost centre’, without the slightest hint of an imperative ‘to turn a buck’, it is nonetheless expected to deliver a suite of services and there are a range of considerations that need to be articulated .

CLICK HERE FOR SOME OF THE FACTS

So, in the context of all this, some of the question’s that ratepayers might be asking need articulating. Likewise, the Mayor, his Deputy and all the incumbent alderpeople should be asking them as well. Some of the questions they might well be asking themselves in front of their household mirrors might be

CLICK HERE FOR A LIST OF QUESTIONS