From: Ray Norman <raynorman7250@bigpond.com>
Date: Thursday, 2 May 2019 at 4:53 pm
To: "Auditor General [Tas]" <admin@audit.tas.gov.au>
Subject: Launceston Council's Accountability
Dear Sir,
It is with some reluctance that I write
now to draw this matter to your attention. Rather than the new Council being
more inclined, more committed, to be accountable to its constituency the
converse seems to be increasingly the case. As a part of my research, private
and independent research, I am in contact with a network of ‘concerned
citizens’ who for various reasons wish remain in the background –
who are nonetheless well informed and concerned given unfolding events.
By way of background, you should be
aware that a key component of my work as a researcher is to do with
placemaking/placemarking, cultural landscaping and cultural geography – https://raynorman7250.blogspot.com/.
Fundamentally, these things are to do with the purpose of ‘local
governance’. As a consequence, I am an element of a network of networks
with many of the others involved living in the Tamar/Esk/Kanamaluka/Ponrabbel ‘region’ – plus
others well beyond and/or with different understandings.
Also, given that ‘Launceston’ is
my current HOMEplace, as a consequence it is an element of
my ‘WORKplace cum laboratory’ along with all
those other factors that make places HOMEplaces what
they are and that lend ‘placedness’ to spaces geographies in
the end.
That said, for whatever reasons it
seems that the City of Launceston Council is attempting to insulate itself from
any form of critical inquiry – indeed, position itself well beyond the
range of any form of serious critical discourses. To the extent that it is
the case, I believe that the resultant ‘bureaucratic opacity’ is
not only untenable but it also points to a situation that is fundamentally
counterproductive in regard to effective representational local governance – especially
so in regard to accountability and transparency.
With all this in mind you might better
understand the context within which I communicate with you – or indeed
anyone in networks I’m currently engaged with.
I have been asked by Council to comply
with a set of ‘communication protocols’ which seems to
have been designed enable the General Manager to deem it to be ‘inappropriate’
for me to write to Council unless it is at his/Council’s convenience.
Accordingly, alone and on behalf of others, I have written to Council seeking
answers to a series of questions to do with the current budget process and the
city’s apparently evolving, as yet largely undisclosed, ‘cultural strategy’.
This correspondence has been dismissed, along with the questions, and has not
found its way onto the Council Agenda, and thus on the record, albeit that it
was submitted for that purpose, in a timely way and as required – see
below.
I’m left to assume that
this has been done under the provisions of the Local Govt. Act such as those to
be found in SECTIONS 62 & 65 and that I’m assuming the
General Manager might well be relying upon and ready to invoke at any time.
In a way, in a research context, I very
much look forward to the subjectivity of, and the deeming of, what is
relevant/irrelevant and/or appropriate/inappropriate being disclosed. It is
most likely that this will be the only way I might discover such things is by
testing the protocols.
Given my network linkages from
time-to-time I’m called upon to relay messages, information, concepts etc. For
whatever reason people, understandably, often do not wish to be “disadvantaged,
be bureau-bullied, be overlooked, be dismissed and sidelined, actively
discriminated against, whatever” even when its asserted that this will not
happen, they seek a level of anonymity. Surely, you will have witnessed this
before now abhorrent as it might be.
Given that each recipient of
correspondence from me can, and is free to, ‘filter’ it
in their own way – many do for whatever reason – I see no
reason to conform to a protocol that aims to silence a critical discourse
– even if I’m now mindful of the requirement.
I suspect that in time we will all
discover where the divide is between appropriate and inappropriate is when it
is at work within Town Hall. Likewise, at sometime in the future we may even
see the differentiation between ‘governance’ and ‘management’ clarified –
or blurred even further. As expectations of governance and management
shift – locally and further afield – change is inevitable.
Expectations relative to ‘accountability
and transparency’ are ever likely to move in line with social
networking as the consequent contemporary cultural, political and social
dynamics come into play. Along with all that, quite likely there will come new
perceptions of what ‘accountability’ should look like
through a 21st Century lens. That lens increasingly
affords sharper definitions and deeper perceptions. Nonetheless, ‘old
fashioned accountability’ should not be made redundant.
Launceston And Cultural Funding In
Context With Local Government.
As a regional centre Launceston is
somewhat unique given its histories and especially so in regard to its ‘cultural
infrastructure’. A cornerstone of that infrastructure is the Queen
Victoria Museum and Art Gallery operated by the city’s council and operating as
the ‘custodian institution’ for one of Australia’s most important
‘cultural collections’. Of interest here is the notional value of
the QVMAG collections. they have been reported as being $240Million plus.
The recurrent funding for the
institution is by-and-large conscripted from the city’s ratepayers with the
State’s taxpayers contributing something in the order of $1.7Million per
annum towards recurrent costs. Capital expenditure typically comes from
government grants and/or other private cum corporate sponsorships which in turn
means that the institution holds in its stewardship extremely important
cultural and scientific material that is ‘owned in lore’ by a
layering of ‘communities of ownership and interest’.
As a consequence of the institution’s
growth over time there has been a blurring of its ‘governance’, and
along with that, the institution’s appropriate ‘management practices’.
This has not always been in accord with what might be understood as ‘best
practice’.
Given all that is at risk, and at
stake, the circumstances currently prevailing and the consequent outcomes all
this seems to point to a need for some form of independent arms-length
investigation to contextualise/recontextualise the institution’s purpose,
governance and management in a 21stC context. Also, all this in accord with the
kind of ‘transparent accountability’ that ought to be the norm in
a 21st C Australia context.
In Conclusion
I am looking forward to there being
some independent examination of the circumstances that embody the cultural,
social and environmental ‘realities’ that define place relative
to ‘cultural funding and cultural institutions’ operating under
the aegis of the City of Launceston. Strategically, I am not
following my intuitive inclination to disregard politicised edicts/assertions
and simply ‘move on’, given that what is at risk and at
stake is non-trivial. My experiences and research over time mitigates against
that.
For context, as I said at the outset, I
see all this as a timely opportunity to address issues and misunderstandings to
do with accountability and transparency relevant to Local Govt.
and ‘the purposefulness of musingplaces’ in the cultural
realities that define ‘placedness’ in a 21st C context.
Regards,
Ray Norman
Ray Norman
<zingHOUSEunlimited>
The lifestyle design enterprise and research network
PH: 03-6334 2176
40 Delamere Crescent Trevallyn TAS. 7250
WEBsites:
“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
From: Ray Norman <raynorman7250@bigpond.com>
Date: Saturday, 27 April 2019 at 3:08 pm
To: Contact Us <contactus@launceston.tas.gov.au>
Cc: Mayor <mayor@launceston.tas.gov.au>, Michael Stretton
<Michael.Stretton@launceston.tas.gov.au>
Subject: QUESTIONS: Cultural Funding
Mayor and Councillors,
It was with some dismay that I found
that questions that have been submitted by myself and a network of ‘concerned
citizens’ do not appear on the current agenda albeit submitted in time.
For my own part I regard the questions
as being important given that:
·
The information being sought does not
appear to be available elsewhere;
·
The budget process that is in progress
calls upon ‘the community’ to provide feedback;
·
The community would need this information
in order to adequately respond to the call for feedback;
·
The budget allocation calls for funding
to be provided for an ‘operational unit’ that is new and somewhat
ill defined; and
·
Within the ‘cultural funding
provisions’ the unit’s purposefulness is unclear and is by-and-large
open to speculation.
The questions have been presented in
context and should not encroach upon ‘confidential matters’. If
this information is available elsewhere could someone please direct me to it.
If as the General Manager has suggested in other correspondence the questions
are “inappropriate” in any way please advise me why that is being deemed
to be so.
I look forward to Council’s response
with interest.
Regards,
Ray
Ray Norman
<zingHOUSEunlimited>
The lifestyle design enterprise and research network
PH: 03-6334 2176
40 Delamere Crescent Trevallyn TAS. 7250
WEBsites:
“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
…………………………………………………..
Thursday,
April 11, 2019
Good
afternoon Anthea,
Following
discussions within the network it has been agreed that these questions
submitted earlier by Treva Alen should be sent to you requesting that they be
submitted to Council for formal inclusion on the NEXT AGENDA as QUESTIONS ON
NOTICE. We ask this given that it is now apparent that it is not enough to
submit questions to the Mayor and/or GM to ensure that outcome.
Please
acknowledge receipt of this email and notify us that the questions have been
placed on the agenda as requested.
In
future we will address all question we wish to be included in the COUNCIL
AGENDA to:
- Yourself
- Contact Us and
- Also lodge them on
COL63233000.BLOGSPOT.COM
Regards,
Ray
Norman
………………………………………………………………………………………….
QUESTIONS BEING SUBMITTED
#3 Mayor
van Zetten tells us that "[he] encourages all ratepayers to read
over the budget proposal and make a submission to our engagement process. It's
important that, as a Council, we understand what matters to the
community," We are doing so and posting questions as people
in the network raise an issue.
CLICK
ON THE IMAGE TO ENLARGE
To
support a citizens review process the following questions arise relative "Cultural
Funding"
QUESTIONS – Given
the budget allocation of $7.9Million or approx $151K
per week that is largely funded from rate demands:
- How many staff are employed
full-time and part-time in this area of activity overall and within the
aegis of the 'Cultural Unit'?
- How many staff are employed
full-time and part-time at the QVMAG?
- How many staff are employed full-time
and part-time Princess Theatre?
- How many staff are employed
full-time and part-time in Cultural Unit?
- Given that the QVMAG
BUDGET represents something in the order of 5.5% [
$6.2Mil] of the city's recurrent budget, how does this
component of 'the cultural spend' compare with
comparable cities elsewhere?
- Similarly, how does Launceston's
total 'cultural spend' [$7,9 Mil ... 7%] – plus
$644K events spend – compare with comparable jurisdictions
elsewhere in Australia.
- Given that the Cultural
Unit has been envisioned as a 'purposeful
operation', going forward what are current outcomes that would be
its measures of success in 1 year, 2 years, 3 years 5 years?
- Given the additional $400K
plus in the QVMAG'S recurrent budget allocation and
the proposed $5.3K Capital expenditure, what are the
anticipatable and measurable outcome flowing from this expenditure?
- What specific 'productivity
dividends' can be expected for cultural outputs in the
Municipality as a consequence of the implementation of the 'Cultural Unit' and
other efficiencies being implemented? How and when are the 'dividends' going
to be accessed and by whom?
- What grant funds and/or
sponsorships going forward are being sought in this area for cultural
production, publications and/or research, and from whom?
- What research projects are
currently in place and when is it anticipated that there will be an
outcome or interim report?
- What strategies are in place, and
anticipated, towards developing incoming generative initiatives via, or
by, the city's cultural producers et al via the 'Cultural Unit'.
- Given the relative magnitude of
the proposed operational budget/s what is the proposed reporting schedule
to Council?
Subscribe
to:
Pages
CONTEXT
This
site is dedicated to documenting emails sent to the City of Launceston where it
now seems that it is discretionary for 'the administration' to
receive, or not receive, emails in accord with administrative convenience
and/or comfort.
For
more information please email:
• zingHOUSE@bigpond.com
Search
This Blog
Top
of Form
Bottom
of Form
LINK
About
Me
Blog
Archive
