RESPONSE TO A RESPONSE TO A QUESTION ON NOTICE FOR COUNCIL'S FIRST MEETING 2024

 To Mayor Garwood and whomever it now concerns,

 

I object most strongly to my authorship of the QUESTION ON NOTICE being represented as ‘my’ question in contravention of my Moral Rights as an author! This question given that it has been edited without my approval is no longer my question. This has happened in blatant disregard to my explicit instructions, copied below, and it is outrageous conduct in every sense.

 

Let alone the fact that as Mayor and chairperson of Council meetings you have clearly stood aside and allowed all this to happen and apparently you have endorsed the misrepresentation on this occasion. Might I remind you that ignorance of the law is no defence in this or any instance. 

 

For example: remove, edit out, the word “not” from any sentence you fundamentally change the sentence and the context within which it is posed. Likewise, remove the word “ammunition” from a list, you change the list’s context and the list’s meaningfulness. All authors of every kind of written text have moral rights. These rights are only ‘elastic’ at the author’s discretion and never so because a bureaucrat has deemed it appropriate to edit text.

 

Moral Rights within Australia’s Copyright Law are not eclipsed by Tasmania’s Local Govt. Act or SECTION 62/2 enshrined in it. The GM/CEO’s apparent assessment has no veracity, and it does not serve you well as Mayor to be seen standing back as Council’s management flaunts Copyright Law as flagrantly as management does and has done in this instance.

 

The outcome here is that the question that was asked, in the context that it was asked, has not been answered. Rather, an apparently more palatable question ‘filtered out’ of my question has been addressed with Council Management apparently claiming, ‘strategic precedence’and thus exceeding their ‘operational function’. This is untenable and just cannot go uncommented upon – nor go without redress.

 

In the vernacular, this is an exemplar of the tail wagging the dog.

 

Against this background, I would graciously accept an unequivocal apology so long as:

• You, as Mayor on the record, acknowledge ensured that there been mistake made in this instance; and that
• You assure your constituents that you and all Councillors will address the question in the context provided by Council’s next meeting.

I look forward with interest to your response at Council’s next meeting.

 

 \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

CONTEXT NOTE:  Given that the City of Launceston:  

• Is on the cusp of appointing a successor to Michael Stretton in his role as GM/CEO; and
• That Michael Stretton has been granted extraordinary powers under the guise of delegated authorities; and
• That arguably many of those delegations enable him to act in regard to circumstances that he has no apparent direct expertise or qualifications; and
• That Councillors, in delegating many of these authorities, they have acted contrary their governance role; and
• Arguably in delegating many of the powers to a council officer, Councillors were abdicating their representative governance function; and
• Moreover, Councillors in acting as they have over time, and leading right up to the present, they have blended, and are blending, the functions of governance with those of management, and at face value inappropriately so; and
• To compound the inappropriateness of the prevailing status quo, in this Council’s time, Councillors have accepted management’s disinclination to be divested of their delegated authorities on the grounds of the cost of doing so; and
• Furthermore, the need to delegate authorities to a GM/CEO is unsustainable in any event given the extraordinary powers available to a GM via SECTION 62/2 enshrined in Tasmania Local Govt Act; and
• That against the background of the status quo, and the pending appointment of a new GM/CEO there is no sustainable rationale for maintaining the status quo with all its inbuilt inequities and distortions.

 

MORAL RIGHTS STATEMENT: For the question I am submitting to Council here, I asset my moral rights as an author under Australian copyright law. Consequently, should Council decide to either edit, paraphrase, or otherwise alter my question it will cease to be my question and therefore it must not be attributed to me under any circumstance.

 

QUESTION:

 

Give the context provided, will Council now expeditiously to remove all of Council’s Delegated Authorities forthwith and when/if required in the future, only grant Delegated Authorities to personnel with the demonstrable qualifications, substantial experience relevant to the authority, and in possession of relevant competencies?

 

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

City of Launceston

Council Meeting Agenda

Thursday 25 January 2024

Page 19

8.1.5. Public Questions on Notice - Ray Norman - Council Delegations - 17 January 2024 8.1.5. Public Questions on Notice - Ray Norman - Council Delegations - 17 January

2024

FILE NO: SF6381

AUTHOR: Kelsey Hartland (Risk and Insurance Officer)

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER: Michael Stretton

QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES:

The following question, submitted to Council on 17 January 2024 by Ray Norman, has

been answered by Louise Foster (General Manager Organisational Services Network).

 

Questions:

1. Will Council now expeditiously to remove all of Council’s Delegated Authorities

forthwith and when/if required in the future, only grant Delegated Authorities to

personnel with the demonstrable qualifications, substantial experience relevant to the

authority, and in possession of relevant competencies?

 

Response:

At this point in time there is no intention to alter the current practice of assigning or

administering Delegated Authorities to the Chief Executive Officer role or within the

Council.

 

The response provided in the Council Agenda of 15 December 2022 provides clear

details of the functioning of the Council's Delegations Register. It has been

reproduced for reference.

… Delegations enhance efficiency at the City of Launceston by devolving

the execution of administrative matters and functions to appropriate levels

within the organisation. The City of Launceston’s Delegations Register is

publicly available via www.launceston.tas.gov.au. The Delegations

Register clearly indicates the functions and powers that have been

delegated by a decision of Council. Decisions of Council are frequently

sought in relation to the review of delegations, or to respond to changes in

legislation.

 

Ray Norman

<zingHOUSEunlimited>

The lifestyle design enterprise and research network

WEBsites:http://www.raynorman7250.blogspot.com

 

“A body of men holding themselves accountable to nobody ought not to be trusted by anybody.” Thomas Paine

 

“The standard you walk past is the standard you accept” David Morrison

https://raynormanadvocate.blogspot.com/

zingCONSULTANCY

https://raynorman7250.blogspot.com/p/zingconsult.html

 

We acknowledge the First Peoples – the Traditional Owners of the lands where we live and work, and recognise their continuing connection to land, water and community. We pay respect to Elders – past, present and emerging – and acknowledge the important role Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people continue to play within the research zingHOUSEunlimited undertakes.

 

FOOT SHOOTING IN PROGRESS AT LAUNCESTON'S TOWN HALL

 

Trust comes down to two things: character and competence. Character includes maturity, integrity and it is what motivates intent. Competence is to do with capabilities, skills, and a track record. Character and competence together are vital and they need to be found together. 

Competence has to do with keeping your head in troubling times, sticking with the task even when it threatens to overwhelm. Improvisation involves one's ingenuity, determination and preparedness for go or do that extra bit. 

When confidence and competence are not on display it is like watching precious water drain away down some plughole. It is always distressing, rarely acceptable and never so in a crisis. 

Strength, courage and confidence is found in every experience in which you stop to look fear in the face, and that is leadership. 

Being able to say 'I have lived through this horror, so I can deal with the next thing that comes along' is the mark of real leadership. 

Leaders must do the thing that they think they cannot do even if it means that cooperation and collaboration is required.

Showmanship is not leadership and it is comedic when one is passed off as the other.

TRANSPARENCY IN LOCAL GOVERNANCE IN LAUNCESTON

 

What it is that Consultants LG Services Group call a 90% success has all the hallmarks of a self-serving assertion. Dive down in this consultant firm's 'marketing' and you'll find a lot of 'managerialism' on display and not much placemaking – local governances prime function. It is no real surprise to see this given that Local Govt. Management (LGM) in the most part wherever it is and is essentially committed to the status quo as it delivers large and generous executive salaries to executive managements.

President Ronald Ragan said of the 'status quo' that quite simply it is Latin for the mess we are in. A truth well spotted!

More to the point, the status quo's messiness is embedded in Local Govt's executive salaries that are supposed to mimmic those on offer in the corporate world. However, they do not by necessity reflect the level of accountability in play in the corporate world. A non-performing executive in that world who raises the ire of shareholders will soon be held to account in relatively short order. Not so in most Local Govt jurisdictions unless there is extreme dysfuncionalism on display that just cannot be ignored.

Ratepayers attempting to hold their Council's management to account will most likely be bureaucratically set upon to the point where those in various professions just cannot afford to engage with local governance. A trickle down of this is that citizens who otherwise might seek to serve in a representative role avoid doing so.

The evidence seems to point Local Govt. executive management being privileged and enabled to presume to speak for others they know nothing about or care to know. Here discrimination isn't just what is said, what is thought, done, and felt. It is most often what is allowed. In Launceston there is a history of avoidance relative to community consultation albeit that the word are mouthed.

Ratepayers suggesting that the device of Citizen's Juries/Assemblies and the disinclination to allow anything of the like is made abundantly clear. This 'citizen engagement strategy' is in relatively wide use elsewhere and aruably successfully. However, what seems to be unwelcomed is openness of the strategy, the attendant transparency and accountability. Moreover, the strategy enables 'experts' within a community otherwise disinclined to engage with Local Govt are more inclined to do so given that they are allowed 'a voice' otherwise denied them.

Tasmania's Local Govt Act has two provisions designed to make a  GM/CEO expediently accountable and more effective but in the time of the city's three recent Mayors they have been permitted to become misused and arguably perversely so. the two provisions being referred to are SECTION 65 and SECTION 62/2 [Link].

That there are disenchanted ratepayers watching on as all stops are apparently being pulled out to ensure that with the impending appointment of a GM/CEO their fears seemingly are being compounded. The Mayor is mouthing platitudes and reading between the lines there are indications that various Councillors are being sidelined. The real treat is that the status quo is to be preserved and ideally compounded.

Arguably, representative 'democracy' has been perverted albeit that in a 21st C sense it is long past its use-by-date given that 'direct democracy's' time is upon us. That is so given all that digital technology can facilitate. Belief in that serves one well and one's own view of reality is the most dangerous of all delusions. Moreover, only 'the public .. the represented', can force its representatives to reverse their abdication of authority that the law allows but is inhibited is stress laden. It perversely shapes their places, their placemaking, their sense of place in discordant ways.

It is alarming that 'civic management' has become so convinced they're the best at anything when none of us are. What is most alarming is when cultural landscaping is regularly, serially and surreally taken over/away in deference to self-serving managerialism.

IN THE EXAMINER: Council CEO recruitment costs 'far outweighed' by benefits

By Joe Colbrook

Updated January 15 2024 - 8:44am, first published January 14 2024 - 5:00am

All councillors have had "the opportunity" to be part of the recruitment process for a new chief executive officer. File picture

All councillors have had "the opportunity" to be part of the recruitment process for a new chief executive officer. File picture

The cost of hiring a new chief executive officer at the City of Launceston council will remain under wraps for now, although mayor Matthew Garwood said the benefits "far outweigh that investment".

Consultants LG Services Group, who claim a 99 per cent success rate at filling executive vacancies, have been hired at an as-yet unknown cost to scout the new chief executive.

The mayor said using external consultants was standard practice, and strongly recommended by the Auditor General in a 2021 review of local government.

This said "not all elected members have the experience or the skills required to conduct effective recruitment ... or performance assessment processes" and external consultants meant correct procedures were followed.

Cr Garwood said the total bill to ratepayers would no be known until the end of the campaign, but finding the right candidate was worth the money.

"The benefits of utilising experts in local government executive recruitment far outweigh that investment, as noted by the Auditor General," he said.

"The chief executive officer role is a position of great responsibility. It requires skillsets in strategic planning, good governance, policy creation and expertise in a wide variety of state and national legislation.

"The right appointment will put our city on a positive path for the future."

The chief executive is the only council employee appointed directly by councillors, and Cr Garwood said "all councillors have had the opportunity to be part of the recruitment process".

The Examiner understands four councillors attended a briefing held by the agency, while others had the opportunity to provide feedback in writing.

////////////////

Council starts nation-spanning search for its new chief executive

By Joe ColbrookJanuary 11 2024 - 4:00am

The City of Launceston council has formally started the process to replace chief executive officer Michael Stretton, who is headed to Hobart City Council. File picture

The City of Launceston council has launched a nationwide, potentially international, search for its new chief executive officer.

Sydney-based LG Services Group - which claims a more than 35-year history of executive recruitment, and a 99-per-cent success rate - has been contracted to scout for the new head of the council's administration branch.

Mayor Matthew Garwood said councillors were seeking a 'can do' leader who would fill a critical role at the council.

"The position requires oversight of the day-to-day operations of our organisation, collaboration with a wide range of stakeholders and community members, liaison with other tiers of government and much more," he said.

"We'll seek candidates from across Australia, and even globally, but we'll also welcome applicants who already work for the City of Launceston in a different capacity and who may be wishing to take the next step in their career."

Information about the role and how to apply is available on the council's careers website, at www.launceston.tas.gov.au/Council/Careers.

The deadline for applications is 9am, February 12 and the successful candidate will be appointed by councillors per the Local Government Act 1993.

The vacancy at the City of Launceston council came after outgoing chief executive Michael Stretton announced he would leave the council in November 2023.

He was first appointed to the role in 2017, and councillors unanimously endorsed his reappointment for another four years in July, 2022.

Mr Stretton will start as the chief executive at Hobart City Council at the end of January.

LOCAL GOVERNANCE IN TASMANIA IS BROKEN AND LAUNCESTON IS AN EXEMPLAR

It is said that the belief that one's own view of reality is the only reality is the most dangerous of all delusions. Moreover, only 'the public', can force its representatives to reverse their abdication of authority that the law gives to democratically elected governance. It is alarming that people become so convinced they're the best at anything when none of us are.... adequate possibly but never best.

Over the jurisdiction Launceston's past three mayors local governance research has been served well enough by the ongoing evolution administrative excesses spiked as is seems to be by growing sense of self-importance and adequacy of management. From the constituency’s perspective and the Community of Ownership and Interest’s(COI) too, the people who were employed to serve, have serially and somewhat surreally demonstrated that increasingly had no interest in the residents and ratepayers’ aspirations.

More to the point increasingly the disinclination of management to listen to the 'constituency' compounded. As a GM with the community front and centre residents and ratepayers might have expected, that within election results, 'management' might have actually gleaned something that might tell you something, but it seems not as they had another agenda. It seems that given the cohort of sycophants they gathered around them they were there to maintain the status quo against whatever might prove to be any kind of stumbling block.

To be plain:

• Almost invariably senior management did not harbour any idea about the actual purpose of local governance and representational democracy or direct democracy or indeed ‘democracy’ given your autocratic aspirations whenever community consultation is called for.

• On the evidence, the had no respect whatsoever for the Community of Ownership and Interest or the ratepayers

• On the evidence, the just did/do not appreciate contrary views and they have built a cohort of sycophantic brow tappers and representatives around them to agree with their status quo vision in order that mutual comfortability is delivered and reinforced.

• On the evidence, the 'unelected executive management' has always been working on another job that pays even more than their current excessive salary rather that meeting their salaried obligations .

• On the evidence, self-interest is front and centre and surrounding themselves self-interested like-minded functionaries and underlings much is a paramount concern much to the chagrin of people with placemaking and cultural landscaping aspirations for Launceston.

Whatever, and despite all this Launceston is as good a place as anyone might aspire live in. On the evidence it is not believable that senior executive management has shared that view, nor have they been inclined to be a transparent, proactive, and accountable placemakers. Typically, they aspire to live elsewhere and do.

Management's modus operandi is one that refuses to listen to any proposition that they are unfamiliar with. It has turned out to be the case that they have avoided a liberal education that involves critical inquiry and consequently arguably there has been credibility gaps in performance outcomes.

Clearly the word ‘democracy’ is irrelevant and abhorrent and thus it is a word to be mouthed but not anything to be aspired to. On the evidence, management hold the line that the ‘elected 12’ are elected to listen to the one voice, theirs, and that the voiceless should be shunned at every turn as they are but milch cows.

History will no doubt prove that this class of management that bends, blands and blends governance’s role with management’s is flawed. Arguably it is spiked with corruption all too often.

Sadly, there are residents, ratepayer and businesspeople who despair in the light of the hubris emanating out Launceston's Town Hall.

Nonetheless, on the cusp of appointing yet another GM/CEO for Launceston's Town Hall, those who have funded ‘Council's' fiscal follies and performance failure need be reminded of the failures of recent years.
• Firstly, the Birchalls fiscal fiasco and the loss of millions upon millions of dollars of ratepayers hard earned dollars lands in the current 'regime's' lap. One day the loss’s cause will be known, and eventually it will be known how it came to be and just how big despite the best efforts to obscure it/them via obfuscation. There is a catalogue of names that as likely as not will be attached and the ‘loss’ and equated with multiples of executive managements and or their successor’s annual salaries. The truth will always be outed.

• Then there is our iconic Albert Hall where this council without a city architect found itself committed to an enormous budget blowout, arguably management driven, and then the loss of access to the facility for four years. This too falls largely in the executive managements lap!

• Then there is executive management's disinclination to allow the QVMAG to have meaningful governance enabling it to be the kind of ‘musingplace’ it has the potential to be rather than an underperforming council cost centre in service to justify a cohort of management's salary level despite its undetectable cultural wherewithal.
• Then there is executive management's willingness to allow council administration to stand back and let vandals do what the community wouldn’t countenance whilst denying the community a voice as to how a large rural property might be reimagined and used to deliver a social and fiscal dividend.
• Then there is executive management’s disinclination to transform the city’s Waste Management Centre into a 21st C resource Recovery Centre without an expensive landfill dependence.

• Then there is the city’s largely undealt with flooding problem with an approved budget but no discernible work in progress save for council officers asking a cohort of flood prone residents how often they could tolerate being flooded out while the flood risk goes largely unmitigated relative to risk.

• Then there is the city’s parking fiasco where council has been found liable for all costs the extent of which is unknown as is the ensuing liability to be borne by ratepayers. The city’s longstanding parking problems have been front and centre for a long time but was never likely to be resolved in time of the executive management given that parking fines and fees are a ‘nice little earner’ to fund managerial follies and salaries. However, as they say the buck does not land lightly in passing on a desk before it lands somewhere else.

• Then there is executive management's disposition to use SECTION 62/2 of the Local Govt Act to circumvent accountability and transparency.

Sadly, the current fear is that, yet another self-satisfied ill equipped managerial appointment will be made to fill the GM/CEO hole. Yes, yet another CEO with no respect for local government democracy and those elected to make sure it operates in the best interest of the community. Time will tell!

Is it any wonder that there are 'concerned citizens' who wish to kick back or that people in Launceston want somebody 'civic management' who is prepared to tell them how the council really operates and how it might be improved.

The Apple Inc. motto goes ... "Here's to the crazy ones. The misfits. The rebels. The troublemakers. The round pegs in the square holes. The ones who see things differently. They're not fond of rules. And they have no respect for the status quo. You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them. About the only thing you can't do is ignore them. Because they change things. They push the human race forward. And while some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius. Because the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world are the ones who do." But for this to mean anything the status quo needs to be insufficient!

WATCH THIS SPACE

Please click on the image to enlarge

RUSSEL'S PLAINS, LAUNCESTON COUNCIL, VANDALISM AND BURNING QUESTIONS

Multiple fires at council-owned property under investigation

By Declan Durrant

Updated October 15 2023 

Police are investigating two structure fires which broke out on the same council-owned Rocherlea property on Saturday afternoon and evening.

A derelict house and shed were completely destroyed by the separate fires which occurred four hours apart at 126-128 Russells Plains road on Saturday, October 14.

Tasmania Fire Service attended the first structure fire at the property about 4:50pm to find a shed had been completely destroyed by fire which had been "impinging on a house" on the property.

Crews brought the fire under control and left the site only to be called back about 9:55pm to find the house engulfed in flames.

A TFS spokesperson said the fire was then contained by firefighters to the house, "making sure it didn't spread" and let it destroy the building.

The matter has since been handed over to police and is being investigated.

"There is some unknown cause that police are following up to why [the fires] started," the spokesperson said.

A file image of 126-128 Russells Plains road, Rocherlea. Picture by Craig George

A Tasmania Police spokesperson said the fires were being investigated by the criminal investigation branch and forensic teams, and had not confirmed if they were lit deliberately.

City of Launceston council had discussed the Russells Plains property - which was the target of an arson attack in 2022 - at a meeting in September and had agreed to demolish the dwelling and shed.

Launceston mayor Matthew Garwood said the demolition was due to take place in coming weeks.

He said council would assess damage from the "most recent arson attack" and determine what remaining demolition and clean-up works are required.

THE EXAMINER STORY By Joe Colbrook September 25 2023

 

THE EXAMINER STORY By Joe Colbrook September 25 2023

The question of what to do with thousands of acres of land in Rocherlea lingers.

The City of Launceston council purchased 126-128 Russells Plains Road in 1997, and it was earmarked as a future landfill site to replace the current facility off Remount Road.

A derelict house stands at 126-128 Russells Plains Road, Rocherlea. Picture by Craig George

Originally a farm, the property comprises 862 hectares of agricultural land with two houses on it.

The council leased these to tenants, and planned to do so until the time came to convert the property to a landfill.

Council documents said residents had to deal with trespassers, wood hookers, illegal dumping and theft, which officers said made it a "difficult property on which to reside".

One tenant left the property in 2022, telling the council they were in "constant fear".

"I don't believe anyone in council have any real idea what's happening on the property," they said.

"Has to be seen to be believed lol. It's just constant fear of being robbed and having cars or belongings taken.

"There is no presence of council and/or police to stop this sort of thing happening ... Pity as it is a nice spot up there."
ears on

The vacant house was destroyed in an arson attack in June 2022, and the remaining one is set to be demolished after a council vote on September 21.

Deputy mayor Hugh McKenzie said taking the house off the market and demolishing it was a hard decision to support, but repairing it would be "putting good money after bad".

The house is on nearly 900 hectares of land initially bought to expand the nearby landfill site. Picture by Craig George
"It isn't a safe place for people to reside," Cr McKenzie said.

"Yes, we could spend money and refurbish the house. My sense is that would probably be putting good money after bad based on the history of the property.

"It's very sad to say that because property should be respected by everybody in the community. Unfortunately, it's not."

Councillor Danny Gibson also spoke in favour of demolishing the house, and said the situation was sad, but the result of a "small minority" of badly-behaved people.

Council officers estimated it would cost about $300,000 to make the remaining house habitable, while demolishing it would cost about $47,000.

Councillor Tim Walker spoke against demolishing the house, saying the property had become uninhabitable because the council neglected its duties, and demolishing it would not fix the underlying problem.

"There are hundreds of rural properties around Launceston right now that are not in that particular state," Cr Walker said.

"Don't tell me that just because the council owns the land somehow it's harder to manage than any other rural property around Launceston. It's not."


The house has been vacant for months, and in a state of disrepair. Picture by Craig George
Cr Walker found some support around the table, with councillor Andrew Palmer saying the council should "continue to do our damnedest" to restore the property and councillor Joe Pentridge saying it should remain a home.

A motion approving the demolition of the house passed 7-5, with councillors Susie Cai, George Razay, Andrew Palmer, Joe Pentridge and Tim Walker voting against.

With the building's fate settled, discussion turned to the land's future use.

Although the property was destined to become a landfill, council documents suggest that it is now unlikely as the lifespan of the Remount Road facility has been extended to 2050.

This coincides with the council's planned transition away from landfill.

READ MORE: Run for your life: How parkrun proved life-changing for one mum

Alternative uses for the land included an industrial estate, recreation ground and potentially some residential land, however the extent of this is limited by the need for buffer zones with the landfill.

The council was far more united in discussing the land's future, with Cr Walker urging his colleagues to make use of the opportunity they had been given.

"What I would like to see in this particular area is a development ... that is planned better than anything that we've ever done before," he said.

A motion "prioritising" a decision on whether the site should be a landfill, and commissioning a land use study passed unanimously.

THE NATIVES ARE GETTING PEEDoff

 

Individual Councillors are invited assess the Council's performance for 2023 on scale of 1 to 10 with 10 equalling EXCEPTIONAL!