Dear Director,
Thank you for your letter which arrives at a time when I am
convalescing from hospitalisation and for much longer than I had anticipated. Thus I've not been best placed to deal with the implied and distorted critiques embedded in your letter. Nonetheless, I'll make the effort to clarify the position from my perspective as a ratepayer/resident, cultural geographer, researcher and sometime 'honorary facilitator' for a network of concerned citizens et al.
QUESTIONS POSTED TO MAYOR AND COUNCILLORS
In regard to my correspondence with the City of Launceston seeking information about the proposed budget expenditures I refer you to:
- Firstly to the correspondence to Council and I ask that you look at it in context – SEE https://col63233000.blogspot.com/2019/06/re-saved-to-cm-re-launceston-council.html
- Secondly, I refer to the responses and I ask that you consider their adequacy and relevance –SEE http://lcc63.blogspot.com/2019/06/city-of-launceston-transparency-and_23.html
I submit that the response provided to the set of questions I endorsed relative to the 'Cultural Unit' is disingenuous, totally inadequate and nothing less than an exemplar cynical obfuscation. More to the point, the questions were addressed to 'Mayor and Councillors' but were responded to by the General Manager. They were not endorsed on the record by 'Council' except perhaps informally in a closed Council 'workshop'.
These 'workshops' are a contentious practice to say the least. That they have provided the mechanism via which 'governance decisions' are made at various times they must be regarded as 'compromised forums'. In the past it has been sometimes claimed that they are 'illegal', At the very least they are clearly 'untoward' given the decision making goes on in camera and in secret by default..
In any event, their outcomes are a long way away from being transparent and accountable. Questions such as those I've submitted were dealt with in secret well away from public view.
For example the responses to the 5th and 5th questions claim a 'uniqueness' on the City of Launceston's part. There is no evidence for such an assertion and to offer it to avoid a considered answer to a genuine and legitimate question is nothing short of thinly disguised cynical disdainful obfuscation. FOR CONTEXT SEE [http://lcc63.blogspot.com/2019/06/city-of-launceston-transparency-and_23.html] • [http://lcc63.blogspot.com/2019/03/3-question-marketing-development-public.html] * [http://lcc63.blogspot.com/2019/03/2-question-marketing-development-public.html] • [http://lcc63.blogspot.com/2019/06/city-of-launceston-transparency-and_23.html]
However, concerningly the response to my 9th question could be characterised as being an exemplar of a bit of 'smart arse undergraduate avoidance'. At the very least it does no credit to an 'Council officer' of whom the highest level of professionalism should be an automatic expectation – and especially so for an 'operative' whose salary reportedly exceeds the Premier's.
Whatever, the best construction to be offered is that the metaphor was missed. If the question was misunderstood (deliberately?), or seen as too obscure, the professional thing to do is say so.
You seem to be saying that Council has meet expectations under the protocols. What protocols would they be? I might agree that ultimately the questions were addressed but only after considerable persistence on my behalf. I cannot accept that any of this happened in a timely way nor in a spirit of openness and transparent accountability as advocated in your department's excellent "Guide to Good Governance". Indeed, to the contrary!
Distilled to the essentials, the General Manager seems to saying:
- The Cultural Unit's only identifiable purpose is for it to exist;
- That its objectives are entirely to do with ensuring that it continues to exist;
- That the rationales for all this are therefore to do with its continued exist – in order that the incomes and benefits that fall due to 'operational functionaries'persist; and consequently
- The key strategic imperative is to do whatever is required to maintain the status quo and continue to conscript the required funding from current sources – ratepayers and taxpayers.
ADMINISTRATIVE STANDARDS
To quote David Morrison, “The standard you walk past is the standard you accept”. It seems that you are prepared to accept some rather low performance standards without any serious investigation of the apparent shortfalls. Much of the evidence for that can be found in the thread of correspondence that is backgrounding this exchange.
Interestingly, you appear more than willing to accept the General Manager's self-serving assertions, and his deeming, of 'expertise' under the provisions of SECTION 65 of the Act. 'Expertise' cannot be legislated into existence and it appears that Council believes that it can be – or the General Manager at least.
After that you appear more than willing to turn a blind eye towards his/Council's misuse of SECTION 62 all of which does nothing towards accountability and transparency in local governance – or indeed public administration.
The bottom line in respect to the 'Cultural Unit' being that there are serious questions to do the 'purposeful expenditure' of something in the order of $7Million conscripted from ratepayers and extracted from 'the 'public purse' – without accountability let alone without any hint of transparency. If you were to mount any kind of serious independent investigation I put it to you that would find troubling matters that would/aught to trouble you deeply.
GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT
The all too often forgotten principle that applies in Local Govt. is that there are clear distinctions between the roles of governance and management. Governance being to do with 'policy making and strategic directions' and management's being their 'implementation and delivery'. Over two decades at Town Hall these distinct roles have become more and more blurred to a point where it has become a major concern.
Aided and abetted by SECTIONS 65 & 62 of the Act alongside this bureaucratically driven secrecy, masquerading as 'confidentiality', has distanced constituents and elected representatives alike from the frontline of 'civic placemaking' – Council's purpose. Largely this is in deference to management's self-serving imperatives and its deemed, albeit self-assumed, superiority and 'expertise'.
THE SPECTRE OF TREVA ALEN
The all too often forgotten principle that applies in Local Govt. is that there are clear distinctions between the roles of governance and management. Governance being to do with 'policy making and strategic directions' and management's being their 'implementation and delivery'. Over two decades at Town Hall these distinct roles have become more and more blurred to a point where it has become a major concern.
Aided and abetted by SECTIONS 65 & 62 of the Act alongside this bureaucratically driven secrecy, masquerading as 'confidentiality', has distanced constituents and elected representatives alike from the frontline of 'civic placemaking' – Council's purpose. Largely this is in deference to management's self-serving imperatives and its deemed, albeit self-assumed, superiority and 'expertise'.
The word coming down from Town Hall is that there is an 'Organisational Alignment Process' in play. Apparently it is 'secret operational business' and its outcome is about to be revealed from behind the wall of secrecy where it is currently being devised. Obviously, given the jargon, the General Manager has added a new book to his library or perhaps he has attended a 'happy-clappy civic empire building seminar' somewhere.
This revelation poses quite a few serious questions.
This revelation poses quite a few serious questions.
- Will the process improve the city's governance? Highly unlikely given its 'management imperatives'.
- Will it more clearly delineate the distinct and different functions of governance and management? Highly unlikely given its 'management imperatives'.
- Will the process empower governance's accountability and/or facilitate increased transparency? Highly unlikely given its 'management imperatives'.
- Will the process enhance management's accountability and/or facilitate its increased transparency? Highly unlikely given its 'management imperatives'.
- Will the process have any impact at all upon enhanced community engagement and/or community consultation? Highly unlikely given its 'management imperatives'.
Arguably the process is ever likely to turn out as having little or nothing to do with 'better governance'. Moreover, this time it will most likely reveal itself as being aimed at yet another incremental shift towards diluting the authority of the elected representatives. Given that over time 'the elected 12' have clearly abdicated and bent towards management's aspirations. The expectation seems to be that all will slip into place as if it had always been there.
THE SPECTRE OF TREVA ALEN
You seem to invoke a thinly veiled criticism that 'Ms Alen' is playing, or has played, some unconscionable role in the backgrounding to this 'communication exchange'. She has done nothing more, and nothing less, than offer her agency to ensure the privacy of the 'network of networks' that I'm engaged with – largely facilitated by social media. That I might be less concerned than some/most is entirely a matter for myself.
However, I do ask that you consider the level of disingenuousness on display as the General Manager, and by extension the entire Council, blatantly operates behind a veil of self imposed secrecy in avoidance of anything resembling accountability. Of course yet again, at the drop of a hat, SECTION 62 comes into play 'willy-nilly' to isolate, and insulate, 'Council' from any kind of critical discourse.
The very notion that any of this gets to be discussed in any relevant to civic accountability is both insulting and patronising.
The very notion that any of this gets to be discussed in any relevant to civic accountability is both insulting and patronising.
Given the implied reprisals on offer from time to time you might might well ask why it might be that many people might want protect their privacy.
APPROPRIATE COMMUNICATION PROTOCOLS.
You raise the issue of the volume of email traffic attributed to me. Firstly, I make no apology whatsoever for being a consistent and persistent communicator with Council. Even if the General Manager finds it inconvenient, inappropriate or tedious I shall not desist at his bidding.
I'm not trying to win his applause for my research effort, rather I am simply attempting, by-and-large unsuccessfully, to hold Council accountable. Also, wherever appropriate, I seek to plumb the depths of dysfunction and obfuscation on display at Town Hall given that I have nothing to either win or loose.
Sadly it turns out that there is all too much to discover that runs counter to the interests of constituent and 'good governance' more generally.
Moreover, I make no apologies whatsoever for facilitating the communication the concerns that come to the attention of people in the networks I'm engaged with. I've made no secret of any of this.
If the volume of email traffic attributed to me were to be the case it would make me three times as productive as your average 'public servant'. That's highly unlikely.
In any event I am disinclined to take the General Manager's surreal protests seriously while ever he persists in holding himself beyond reproach and functionally unaccountable under the provisions of SECTION 62 & 65.
Moreover, whilst ever he budgets for himself nigh on '$80,000 a week' for a slush fund to counter any criticism of any kind that might come Council's way his complaints have all the characteristics of the pot informing the kettle that it is black.
In any event, this self indulgence was discovered in Council's so called budget process. Interestingly this funding has now been dispersed into multiple allocations throughout where it is less obvious but nonetheless 'available' .
IN CONCLUSION
During my recent hospitalisation I experienced first hand service, known in the 'caring professions' as "unconditional positive regard" being delivered by default. That is so despite the political and bureaucratic dysfunction much discussed in Tasmania's health sector. Nonetheless, one wonders about just how resilient these professionals need to be to maintain their professionalism at great odds.
Conversely, Launceston Town Hall, on the evidence, maintains a stance that by default ensures that its constituency is, by default, disregarded and by-and-large treated with contempt and all too often disdain. I've been researching an 'operation' within Council for well over two decades. All too often from a position 'up close and personal'' I've witnessed the situation deteriorate and particularly so at the senior executive. It gives me no joy to be saying so.
Given the recent experiences at Huon and Glenorchy Councils it is puzzling as to why the City of Launceston has not yet been exposed to any form of 'formal inquiry'. A long time ago such an inquiry should have been tasked to expose the actual level of dysfunction, unaffordable expensive dysfunction. Such an inquiry is need now more than ever to break the the impasse that is bureaucratically and financially hobbling any real attempt at meaningful service delivery.
To be meaningful such an inquiry would need to be totally independent and tasked to interrogate:
• The City of Launceston's record of unambiguous accountability to its constituency;
Given the recent experiences at Huon and Glenorchy Councils it is puzzling as to why the City of Launceston has not yet been exposed to any form of 'formal inquiry'. A long time ago such an inquiry should have been tasked to expose the actual level of dysfunction, unaffordable expensive dysfunction. Such an inquiry is need now more than ever to break the the impasse that is bureaucratically and financially hobbling any real attempt at meaningful service delivery.
To be meaningful such an inquiry would need to be totally independent and tasked to interrogate:
• The City of Launceston's record of unambiguous accountability to its constituency;
• The remuneration levels across the entire Council operation;
• The level of community engagement and consultation that informs decision-making;• The city's constituents unimpeded access to information when, where and for whatever legitimate reason they they seek it;
• Management standards relevant to fiscal management, equitable contractual arrangements and in particular Council's tendering processes;
• The level of community engagement and consultation that informs decision-making;• The city's constituents unimpeded access to information when, where and for whatever legitimate reason they they seek it;
• Management standards relevant to fiscal management, equitable contractual arrangements and in particular Council's tendering processes;
• Asset and resource management and especially so in regard to staffing levels, workplace safety and qualifications;
• The application of SECTIONS 65 & 62 of the Local Govt. Act 1993 with a view to identifying their inadequacies in 21st C Tasmania; and
• The insurance that Council truly has access to appropriate and verifiable 'expert advice' in every aspect of Council's policy determination, strategic development and ongoing operations.
The time is now, not later, not after some 'Organisational Alignment Process', not when something or other has taken place. Unless such an inquiry is robust. Importantly, it must be conducted at arm's-length as constituents, arguably, will have diminishing prospects going forward if the 'operation' continues to grows in its splendid isolation insulated from meaningful criticism and critical inquiry.
I look forward with great interest to your response in the near future.
I look forward with great interest to your response in the near future.
Launceston
