TO: Director of Local Government:
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 21st 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
The lifestyle design enterprise and research network
Ray Norman
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
