PLEASE CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO ENLARGE
Dear Sir, ..... Given that the upcoming Local Government Election are now upon Launcestonians and that it seems to be increasingly clear that the citizens of Launceston are being rather poorly served by their Council, I write expressing my alarm at unfolding events. Increasingly, it appears to be the case that in regard to the city’s ‘Financial Management’, and especially so in regard to:
• Councillors’ access to budget management information and fiscal reporting; and
• Tendering processes; and
• Out of budget expenditure; and
• Possibly more still, there are non-trivial events unfolding.
In any event there appears to be serious shortfalls that are increasingly of concern.
.........................
Recent events have brought all this into sharper focus. The unravelling and extremely concerning press relevant to the City of Launceston’s ‘involvement’ in the Paterson Street Central Carpark Project becomes more deeply concerning as events unfold – LINK – all of which have deeply concerning fiscal implications for constituents.
.........................
Rather than looking to Local Government to equitably, and ethically, fulfil its representative role in a fiscal context, as is clearly implied in the Act 1993 as being, 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.
.........................
(4) A council may transfer to a single authority or a joint authority –
(a) any of its assets and liabilities on any condition it determines; or
(b) any of its employees.
.........................
(5) A council may –
(a) acquire, hold, dispose of and otherwise deal with property; and
(b) sue and be sued in its corporate name.
.........................
A growing number of CoL Constituents have come to expect opaque and unaccountable conduct on the part of ‘Council’ – Councillors and Council Officers alike. It is especially so in regard to ‘fiscal matters’ that in turn have implications for ratepayers short and long term – and especially so relative planning matters and their fiscal implications.
.........................
In fact, there is a growing number of constituents whose experiences with Council are troubling in so many ways and it is especially so in regard to the ways the Act is used to assiduously avoid ‘transparency and accountability’. The questions now hanging are to do with whether Council, having decided to pursue the course action that it has relative to the Paterson Street Central Carpark development for instance, are:
• Have ‘the Councillors’ acted appropriately in assessing risk and in regard to mitigation of those risks; and
• Have ‘Council Officers’ provided appropriate ‘expert advice’ in regard to the mitigation of any risks and assessing the risk potential relative to what they have advised Councillors that they should be acting upon –overtly or by implication.
.........................
The General Manager (AKA CEO) has a particular responsibility here that constituents should be able to rely upon. I refer to SECTION 65 of the Local Govt Act1993.
.........................
The unfolding reports relative to CoL’s:
• Accountability, in regard to the Paterson Street Central Carpark Development Project; and
• Equitable and ethical expenditure of ratepayers’ funds in regard to that project and others; and
• Management apparently operating without appropriate consultation with Councillors and by extension ratepayers; and
• The growing concern in regard to the city’s burgeoning debt levels;
bring all this into increasingly sharp focus.
.........................
While the city’s ‘concerned citizens’ might raise such issues with government, effectively they are powerless in regard to initiating the class of investigation that seems to be required in order to have confidence restored in regard to CoL constituents relative to matters springing from appropriate fiscal management.
.........................
It also appears to be the case that the upcoming elections are highly unlikely to deliver transparency and accountability to Launcestonians despite compulsory voting given the ‘administrative culture’ that has evolved within Launceston’s Town Hall.
.........................
It is just the case that it appears as if a ‘self-serving, self-assessing administrative culture’ has evolved and if it is so, action needs to be taken to bring about the changes that are apparently needed in regard to ‘fiscal accountability’. Clearly, there are non-trival ‘fiscal trickle down impacts’ that need to be addressed.
.........................
Moreover, the Paterson Street Central Carpark Development Project seems to be exposing Council’s deficiencies – indeed, in exposing these ‘fiscal trickle down impacts’.
.........................
As someone who researches ‘governance’ relative to placemaking I am alarmed at not only by what is being revealed via the press but also by personal communications within my networks. These things impact upon community well-being in multiple ways.
.........................
Moreover, it is more than alarming that the city’s constituency have come to believe that they are powerless and unrepresented by their Councillors and by extension State Government. Against this backgrounding I draw this matter to your attention.
.........................
Yours sincerely,
Ray Norman
No comments:
Post a Comment