Over the past two years I have been regularly attending Launceston City Council meetings. I have become increasingly concerned about the way council is conducting itself and the way it carries out its business. At almost every meeting I have attended I have drawn my concerns to the attention of Aldermen and the General Manager but they seem totally oblivious to, and closed to, any form of criticism and critique. Also, as a member of the public, I have experienced every kind obstacle being put in my way to prevent me legitimately engaging with the matters before council.
From past experience as an alderman, I find it alarming to witness what I know to be the sidelining of aldermen’s representational responsibilities. Alarmingly, one almost never hears the aldermen speak about the ratepayers' interests. In my days at council they were always the first consideration.
The ways in which council comes to a decision currently is almost always unanimous and without substantial debate around the table. It is as if the decision-making has already gone on well before the meeting and well away from the scrutiny of ratepayers, the press and people in the gallery.
The ways in which council comes to a decision currently is almost always unanimous and without substantial debate around the table. It is as if the decision-making has already gone on well before the meeting and well away from the scrutiny of ratepayers, the press and people in the gallery.
This is troubling and it might even be illegal if this pre-meeting decision-making is happening. Aldermen, as I understand things, must be making their decisions in the clear light of day, in open council and around the table.
In fact it is sometimes quite clear that the General Manager has negotiated an arranged outcome away from the table and then, after the fact, by some means, seemingly, he has persuaded the aldermen to toe his line – typically without open discussion or meaningful public consultation.
For instance, this was most obvious when council granted naming rights for York Park to UTas. So far as I’m aware the General Manager has declared this information to be “commercial confidence” under SECTION 62 of the Local Govt. Act. It is disturbing for ratepayers not to know what kind of arrangement has been struck between Launceston City Council and UTas and what income or benefits might reasonably flow to ratepayers – if any – as a consequence of the commercial exploitation of a public asset.
For instance, this was most obvious when council granted naming rights for York Park to UTas. So far as I’m aware the General Manager has declared this information to be “commercial confidence” under SECTION 62 of the Local Govt. Act. It is disturbing for ratepayers not to know what kind of arrangement has been struck between Launceston City Council and UTas and what income or benefits might reasonably flow to ratepayers – if any – as a consequence of the commercial exploitation of a public asset.
It is of interest that Council and UTas have met on 20 separate occasions to discuss UTas’ proposed move to Inveresk. Prof. Rathjen on ABC Mornings provided this information and it is troubling when all of these meetings are held behind closed doors or in closed Council or in closed Strategic Planning meetings.
These meetings between UTas and LCC must unavoidably be given over to business that will lead to expenditure and planning that will ultimately effect residents, businesses, etc. ability to enjoy the amenity of their properties and/or effect the level of rates they will have to pay.
What is more worrying is the priority given to moving the university such a short distance with so many consequences and far too little attention being paid to matters like sewerage and stormwater management and all the parking cum traffic issues. With all the strategic decisions being made well away from public view it is concerning. These things individually and collectively should make granting a development application more difficult than it appears is being experienced. In fact it appears as if all difficult issues have been by-passed and behind closed doors. Permission seems to have been virtually granted and well out of sight of the ratepayers.
All of this, and similar issues, should be more than enough for aldermen – the ratepayers’ representatives – to be asking more and more questions. If they are asking them they are doing so well away from ratepayers and people are more and more in the dark than I can ever remember.
There are just so many problems to my mind that it is hard to pick any one that shows up the level of failure that council is in charge of. Even so, there is something to be said in regard to the way council has taken on a $9million loan for a site development and a carpark. Clearly this loan was negotiated well away from the aldermen and there was no tender process involved to ensure that ratepayers were getting best value for the money they will be borrowing. Also, it turns out that it seems some kind of backroom deal has been arrived at in the allocation of the project. This is hardly prudent decision making.
There are just so many problems to my mind that it is hard to pick any one that shows up the level of failure that council is in charge of. Even so, there is something to be said in regard to the way council has taken on a $9million loan for a site development and a carpark. Clearly this loan was negotiated well away from the aldermen and there was no tender process involved to ensure that ratepayers were getting best value for the money they will be borrowing. Also, it turns out that it seems some kind of backroom deal has been arrived at in the allocation of the project. This is hardly prudent decision making.
Following on from this there was the $11million loan apparently raised by Launceston’s General Manager using the powers afforded him under SECTIONS 62 65 of the Local Govt. Act but apparently without the knowledge of or any engagement with the aldermen.
If all that is not enough by itself, people’s rates are inevitably going to increase despite the General Manager saying that they will not. In fact the evidence is in the current budget where it’s clear that a little less than half of this $9million loan loan will need to be refinanced in five years time, long after the current Aldermen and the General Manager will have left the Council. Also, people like myself might be struggling to remember this whole affair and that should make current and future ratepayers really angry.
I believe that the Launceston City Council’s governance and operational structure needs to be thoroughly investigated and audited. Launceston’s governance is a matter that should be placed under independent scrutiny and sooner rather than later. To my mind this matter is so serious that it needs to referred to not only the Auditor General but also the Integrity Commission and the Ombudsman.
Premier, after a considerable time being involved in and around Launceston’s Local Government I believe that the city has arrived at a crisis point like no other that I’ve witnessed. I also believe that it is urgent that the State Govt. take urgent steps to regularise Launceston’s local governance so as the city’s citizens may expect it to be truly accountable.
Basil Fitch
August 2017
Basil Fitch
August 2017
