OPEN LETTER TO DIRECTOR LOCAL GOVT.

FYI

From: "Local Government Division (DPaC)" <lgd@dpac.tas.gov.au>
Date: Monday, 3 June 2019 at 1:25 pm
To: Ray Norman <raynorman7250@bigpond.com>
Subject: RE: LETTER: Launceston Council's Accountability

Good afternoon Mr Norman

I acknowledge receipt of your email to the Local Government Division.

Your email will be responded to as soon as possible.

Regards

Margaret Young 

Margaret Young

Executive Officer

GPO Box 123

Hobart  Tas  7001

Ph: 03 6232 7822

Division reception: 6232 7022

Local Government Division Department of Premier & Cabinet www.dpac.tas.gov.au

P Please consider the environment before printing this message

From: Ray Norman <raynorman7250@bigpond.com> 
Sent: Monday, 3 June 2019 12:54 PM
To: Local Government Division (DPaC) <lgd@dpac.tas.gov.au>
Cc: TAO Admin (TAO) <Admin@audit.tas.gov.au>
Subject: LETTER: Launceston Council's Accountability

LETTER: Launceston Council's Accountability https://col6323300m.blogspot.com/2019/05/letter-launceston-councils.html

TO: Director of Local Government:

Mr Alex Tay Email: lgd@dpac.tas.gov.au

Local Government Division

Department of Premier and Cabinet

Level 5, 15 Murray Street

Hobart TAS 7000

Dear Sir,

I write to you on the advice of the Auditor General, and on behalf of a network of 'concerned citizens',[LINK] in regard to our concerns to do with the accountability of City of Launceston Council – see correspondence and links below. My primary concern is with the ways SECTIONS 65 & 62 of the Act are being interpreted and applied at Launceston’ Council. Also, the ‘bureaucratic culture of automatic secrecy’ that seems to flow from all that is an increasing concern in that it compromises transparency. This has been the case for some time but in recent times, as the possibility of adverse outcomes appear, it seems as if they may well be increasing rather than abating.

It appears that no matter what amount of critical discourse is directed at Council, seemingly it gets scant attention and it is reliably met with obfuscation and bureaucratic avoidance. Anything resembling ‘transparency and accountability’ seems, increasingly, to be less and less likely. 

Councillors have become reticent to respond to requests for information. Likewise, they are more and more reticent to engage with constituents on an issue and much more inclined to site “code of conduct and declared confidentiality” for their inability to respond to constituents in a meaningful way.

This ‘code of conduct concern’ may well be justified in some instances but not in each and every one if the issues of accountability and transparency are to have any meaning in application.

SECTION 65 LOCAL GOVT ACT 1993

In my opinion, this provision of the Act carries onerous obligations that are either unable to be meet or opens the opportunity to assert: 

• ‘managerial convenient truths’ to suit a circumstance, 
• over-blow the veracity and credibility of advice; and/or 
• allow for laziness in research/investigations. 

The apparent capacity of a General Manager to ‘deem’ herself/himself ‘an expert authority’, and to over-reach in doing so, is of serious concern when witnessed in action. 

Moreover, the ways in which the provision can be invoked can, some say does, override the elected representatives’ various skill sets, experience and qualifications – and possibly inappropriately.

Similarly, the expertise ‘guaranteed by the General Manager’ seemingly cannot be challenged and apparently assumes the status of the ‘absolute authority’ by default. Thus, any form of serious challenge, or authoritative questioning, is ever likely to attract dismissal and/or discounting.

Compounding all this, decision-making processes are ever likely to be bureaucratically expedited and foreshortened to mitigate against any kind of community challenge. This is so irrespective of the layering of various levels of expertise within the constituency – indeed within the elected representatives.

SECTION 65 has all the hallmarks of being framed as if the community and the elected representatives are automatically devoid of any form of relevant expertise. Also, it seems to be based on an assumption that representatives in decision-making roles are totally lacking in wisdom relative to ‘Council policies, strategies and/or operations’ or their development.

I submit that almost unavoidably all this leads to rather poor decision-making relative to community needs and aspirations. At the very least, were any of the failures relative to the application of poor/inappropriate expertise there needs to be some mechanism in place to ensure expectations for community wellbeing are fulfilled – and are open to being tested.

Currently there is little to no evidence that this matter is regarded as a serious concern relative to the adequacy of this Council’s determinations and governance. One wonders at what cost – fiscal and social – and why that might be so.

SECTION 62 LOCAL GOVT. ACT 1993

I submit that item 2 of this provision – “The general manager may do anything necessary or convenient to perform his or her functions under this or any other Act.” – is serially and surreally misapplied by the City of Launceston’s General Manager – current incumbent and his predecessor.  The outcome has contributed to a ‘Council culture’ of obfuscation, rudderless self-determination and at times bureaucratic excess.

While it might be questioned as to why such a provision for ‘discretionary authority’ even exists, used appropriately it has a role to play in the delivery of effective civic management –ie in breaking a stalemate.

Used inappropriately, and I submit that all too often it is, there is enough evidence there to be gathered to temper the provision’s excesses. For example, recently it seems to have been used discriminatory to interrupt/censure my communication with Council – see below and say https://col63233000.blogspot.com/2019/04/re-urgent-questions-2.html

Rather than exhaustively catalogue instances of excess I invite your office, given the Audit Office’s advice, to conduct an investigation. Personally, I am aware of enough instances to sound serious alarm and I'm doing so. However, I may be in error.

DELEGATED AUTHORITY

It is something of a mystery as to how delegated authorities are assigned inn Launceston and it is a matter that has concerned me for some time. It is particular concerning when you encounter an officer with delegated authority and they cause you to doubt the credibility of their authority relative to their demonstrated expertise on exhibit and/or professional qualifications relative to a circumstance.

In my experience ‘a Council position’ seems to have been deemed to hold/carry appropriate experience and/or qualifications and to automatically have delegated authority. Yet in particular circumstances it may well be contestable. The ‘delegated authority’, in order to be valid, needs to be able to demonstrate credibility and appropriate qualifications and/or experience – or should be able to do so.

It is ever likely to be the case that once these ‘authorities’ get to be contested shortcomings may become obvious. Also, ‘elected representatives’ are likely to be unwilling to contest the determination after the fact. Similarly, ‘the public’ is placed in an invidious position in such circumstances.

It is sound ‘business practice’ to regularly to reset such authorities on the proposition that it ensures that discretionary authority is held by the most qualified personnel. This appears to be an antithetic managerial practice at this Council and arguably this impacts upon SECTION 65 where there is always a need for credible expertise. That is, either expertise within the operation or that imported at increasing expense via consultants.

I submit that effective governance is being compromised at the City of Launceston given the inbuilt weaknesses in the way Delegated Authorities are assigned, administered and assessed. 

Moreover, the tendency to discount the elected representatives’ life experience and professional backgrounds is somewhat alarming. I likewise submit that all Delegated Authorities that are assigned should be to a suitably qualified individual and not to an anonymous person in the position – possibly coincidentally.

CULTURE OF CONSTITUENCY DISENGAGEMENT

I submit that current governance and management practises at the City of Launceston errs in favour of maintaining a culture of confidentiality with all its attendant obfuscation, opacity, self-assessed credibility and ultimate unaccountability – and all too often by default.

Arguably, the operation performs less effectively than it otherwise might under a regime of accountability and transparency by default. There is a need to protect constituent’s and business people’s privacy in many instances but when a critical discourse is compromised by a lack of information – critical information that impacts upon social decision making etc. – the ‘confidentiality default’ stance may well expose constituents to unacceptable risk – especially so in regard to appropriate planning.

In a 21^st C context where there is a capacity for information to flow freely there is a need to allow for this rather than attempt to constrain it. The risk that poor, inadequate and distorted information exposes decision-making to are, arguably, too great to countenance. Moreover, when and where confidentiality is used as a mask activity and/or to cover inappropriate behaviours and inept decision-making, it becomes untenable.

When confidentiality/secrecy is there at the service of bureaucratic imperatives this exposes the entire operation and its constituency to extraordinary risk that are by-and-large incalculable. The notion that this might be a risk too far becomes compelling when that dimension is plumbed to its depth, assessed and considered.

PURPOSEFUL GOVERNANCE

While the Act, in a general way, clearly states that Local Govt’s purpose is “to provide for the health, safety and welfare of the community; to represent the interests of the community; and to provide for the peace, order and good government of the municipal area” when it is at work ‘locally’ there are local and locally idiosyncratic imperatives at work as well.

Given that Local Govt. has the necessary powers and authority invested in it to ‘conscript’its recurrent funding in order to fulfill its ’purpose’ it is unacceptable for a Council’s purposefulness to stray too far. Confidentiality and secrecy are typically the tools used to mask the diversion of effort away from ‘prime purpose’ and aught not be tolerated at any level or in any context.

In the final analysis ‘local constituencies’ acting alone are constrained in the context of ‘representational democracy’ to intercede and pull their representatives back to their intended ‘purposefulness’. Functionally communities can be held to ransom by:

• their elected representatives operating in accord with political imperatives and at odds with the constituency’s; and
• bureaucratic management structures when they become self- directing, self-serving and exponents of their own deemed purposefulness – to measure their success by their own survival at whatever cost.  

Various networks within the Municipality of Launceston argue that the City of Launceston Council, from their perspective, is not operating purposefully and to various degrees operating counter to their aspirations and expectations. Such assessments are ever likely to be subjective but nonetheless a ‘purposeful Council’ should/would/could be expected to entertain an open critical exchange with all its constituency in order to plot an inclusive pathway forward.

Clearly, there is a need to reset the accountability and transparency imperatives within the municipality’s governance. That is clarify and articulate the differences between governance and management. However, the methods that might work at a local level seem to have been withdrawn for whatever reason. 

Therefore, there are few options open to constituents except perhaps via an appeal to your office to intercede.

A WAY FORWARD

In consultation with people in my network there seems to be a kind of consensus that says that some form of external intervention in the affairs of the City of Launceston’s Council is now both justified and required. The city, by any measure, is operating in a difficult fiscal environment and it is becoming less and less resilient – economically, socially and environmentally. Moreover, the current development proposals and planning imperatives in play, arguably, are founded upon redundant understandings and contentious misconceptions – climate change being at least one of the contested issues.

I submit that a way forward can be found in 3 distinct steps.

I. Independent Strategic Management Review (ISMR): By whatever politically palatable mechanism there is a clear need to review:

• The Council’s current governance imperatives relative to its purpose and constituency aspiration's;
• The Council’s management structure relative to its fitness to deliver outcomes      consistent with its purpose;
• Key policies relative to the delivery of purposeful governance;
• Strategic priorities towards developing sustainable probity assurance.

2. Structural Reconstitution: Following on from the ISMR there will be an awareness of things that need to change for whatever reason. Ideally there will be a level of consensus relative to changes that could/should be made along with their priorities and an understanding of the pace within which change needs to be effected. Consequent to this:

• Required/desired change will need to be articulated and documented in context – short, medium and long term;
• Priorities will need to be articulated in order  that ‘performance indicators’ can be established;
• Timelines will need to be identified in order that some credible assessment of performances can be made; and
• Within an identified timeframe, assess outcome relative to the ISMR outcomes.

3. Governance Review: Dependent up the ‘ISMR outcomes review’ process there will be various options identifiable for away forward. In the cases of Huon and Glenorchy Councils the decision was to put the operation under the control of an ‘Appointed Commissioner’ up to the point where a new set of representatives could be elected to ‘govern’ with the benefit of a restructured ‘operational management’.

At any point along the way this ‘3 Step Process’ can be interrupted and reconfigured at any time. On the assumption that either major change comes about  which will depend upon the recalcitrance or willingness of the current Council to move forward as a purposeful local governance body. 

In conclusion, with the prospect of what is being claimed to be "unprecedented development" in the municipality, plus the speculation that there is a real prospect of 'city's rates' climbing by 45% to 50% in the decade ahead, there is real need for truly accountable governance; actual transparency in governance; and effective civic administration. Recent events give rise to serious concerns in regard to all this and consequently we draw your attention to our concerns. We look forward to your advice.
'

Yours sincerely,

Ray Norman
for and on behalf of the LCC Network

• PS Link to Auditor General Letters
• LCC News Blog
• LCC ON Budget matters

The lifestyle design enterprise and research network

Ray Norman

EMAIL 1: raynorman7250@bigpond.com

40 Delamere Crescent Trevallyn TAS. 7250

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

---

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER
The information in this transmission may be confidential and/or protected by legal professional privilege, and is intended only for the person or persons to whom it is addressed. If you are not such a person, you are warned that any disclosure, copying or dissemination of the information is unauthorised. If you have received the transmission in error, please immediately contact this office by telephone, fax or email, to inform us of the error and to enable arrangements to be made for the destruction of the transmission, or its return at our cost. No liability is accepted for any unauthorised use of the information contained in this transmission.