A COUPLE OF PROVISIONS IN THE TASMANIAN LOCAL GOVT. ACT TO KEEP IN MIND
SECTION 20. Functions and powers
(1) In addition to any functions of a council in this or any other Act, a council has the following functions:
(a) to provide for the health, safety and welfare of the community;
(b) to represent and promote the interests of the community;
(c) to provide for the peace, order and good government of the municipal area.
(2) In performing its functions, a council is to consult, involve and be accountable to the community.
(3) A council may do anything necessary or convenient to perform its functions either within or outside its municipal area.
(1) The general manager has the following functions:
(a) to implement the policies, plans and programs of the council;
(b) to implement the decisions of the council;
(c) to be responsible for the day-to-day operations and affairs of the council;
(d) to provide advice and reports to the council on the exercise and performance of its powers and functions and any other matter requested by the council;
(e) to assist the council in the preparation of the strategic plan, annual plan, annual report and assessment of the council's performance against the plans;
(f) to coordinate proposals for the development of objectives, policies and programs for the consideration of the council;
(g) to liaise with the mayor on the affairs of the council and the performance of its functions;
(h) to manage the resources and assets of the council;
(i) to perform any other function the council decides.
(2) The general manager may do anything necessary or convenient to perform his or her functions under this or any other Act.
SECTION 65. Qualified persons
(1) A general manager must ensure that any advice, information or recommendation given to the council or a council committee is given by a person who has the qualifications or experience necessary to give such advice, information or recommendation.
(2) A council or council committee is not to decide on any matter which requires the advice of a qualified person without considering such advice unless –
(a) the general manager certifies, in writing –
(i) that such advice was obtained; and
(ii) that the general manager took the advice into account in providing general advice to the council or council committee; and
(b) a copy of that advice or, if the advice was given orally, a written transcript or summary of that advice is provided to the council or council committee with the general manager's certificate.
(1) A general manager must ensure that any advice, information or recommendation given to the council or a council committee is given by a person who has the qualifications or experience necessary to give such advice, information or recommendation.
(2) A council or council committee is not to decide on any matter which requires the advice of a qualified person without considering such advice unless –
(a) the general manager certifies, in writing –
(i) that such advice was obtained; and
(ii) that the general manager took the advice into account in providing general advice to the council or council committee; and
(b) a copy of that advice or, if the advice was given orally, a written transcript or summary of that advice is provided to the council or council committee with the general manager's certificate.
If in their 'decision making' they 'represent' a cohort of their constituency's interests it is coincidental – perhaps even accidental. This is clearly a consequence of Indirect Representational Democracy (IRD) albeit built upon a largely redundant foundation rooted in history.
As for SECTION 65, SECTION 62/2, it seems that it can be used by the GM/CEO to deem anything 'expert' just so long it fits his(or her) world view. Thus any advice a GM offers is deemable as 'expert advice' – suitably qualified, suitably qualified, by means of holding the position of GM and receiving a salary. However, Councillors are not required to accept her/his advice or that of her/his officers whom she/he deems to be expert.
Notionally, a GM is held accountable by Councillors and typically via being contracted to hold the position Councillors are held accountable at the end of an election cycle – four years. Consequently, at the upcoming Local Govt. elections Councillors are notionally being held 'accountable' but on the face of it the GM/CEO is not.
By extension, in this circumstance, it is clear that, functionally, the GM/CEO can deem himself self-accountable way beyond the reach of the city's citizens or even the municipality's constituency. Clearly this is a circumstance delivered by Councillors notionally representing their constituents under the IRDmodel – albeit without any need to test the GM/CEO's accountability credentials or inclinations.
Given the City of Launceston's predisposition to 'confidentiality' exhibited so very often, and concerningly, it is time for a reality check. It is especially so with recent revelations in Canberra that suggest that inappropriate 'self-serving confidentiality' has become endemic in politics and public administration.
What can be done? In Launceston at least Local Govt. constituents might profitably consider NOT VOTING FOR AN INCUMBENT COUNCILLOR!
Richard M. Nixon said ... "If I were to make public these tapes, containing blunt and candid remarks on many different subjects, the confidentiality of the office of the president would always be suspect."
No comments:
Post a Comment