COMMUNITY ENTERPRISEE

 HOUSIING

BACKGROUNDING: Strategic Planning and PLACEmaking in Launceston

random link

BACKGROUNDING

lutruwitaTasmania's government relatively recently undertook what was purported to be a review of the State's "Local Government Legislation" with a view to reform it and consider  new(?)"directions".  It purported to be seeking "flexible, innovative and future focused legislative framework" but it was  blighted almost from the get-go. In the 'survey form' respondents were asked to embrace a process that asked/required them to complete a form. To a critical eyes that form revealed that, despite the rhetoric, the process was subliminally committed to an outcome which was pretty much directed to deliver more of the same – a tweaked Status quo indeed.

Albert Einstein's now famous quote "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results" resonates rather loudly in Launceston's Town Hall via its strategic planning process that is currently in train.

For those who pay attention to such things the process in play in Launceston reeks of status quoism and it is facilitated by the Councillors who seemingly have passed the ball to management. 

By extension, on the available evidence, they, the officers et al, do not regard providing meaningful community consultation and effective community engagement as being their role. That's the concern of 'governance' but it seems that for whatever reason the Councillors have by-and-large abdicated their role in this instance.

However, “There is a crack in everything, that’s how the light gets in.” – Leonard Cohen, “Anthem” (1992)

Leonard Cohen, the Canadian poet, novelist, singer-songwriter, included these words in his song “Anthem” released in 1992. This quote suggests that even in the midst of brokenness and imperfection, there is still room for growth and healing. It encourages individuals to embrace their vulnerabilities and find strength in overcoming adversity. By applying this learning, individuals can view their challenges as opportunities for personal growth and use their experiences to inspire and uplift others.

The very first item on that State governmen survey form reads, "The new legislation should set principles for the governance and operations of local government, with greater detail to be set in Regulations" sets the scene in a rather troubling way. To read this as the beginning of what lookd like a 'Push Poll', it takes no imagination at all to see status qoism in prospect.

That is a poll masquerading as an interactive marketing technique, commonly employed to influence a political outcome. Individual and/or organizations are manipulated, when successful, in order that participants perceptions are altered in some way. Here prospective voters' views cum beliefs/understandings are there to be altered/adjusted by stealth via something disguised as a opinion poll. 

Here people are contacted, it seems, with the minimal effort made to actually collect meaningful responses. Instead, it is a form of marketing cum propaganda cum rumour mongering, masquerading as something that it isn't really. There seems to be a dependence  upon innuendo to essentially justify an outcome that is more of the same even though it seems to be no longer fit for purpose.

Given that LEGAT was seen as being some kind of driving force behind the 'initiative' to review  local governance, it is no surprise whatsoever that the effort to maintain the status quo is in evidence. LEGAT's membership has a great deal invested in the current arrangements – incomes, authority and status.

Unless there is some kind of paradigm shift, currently, the process is very likely to deliver more of the same. That is a tinker with version of the current Act.

THE FOUNDATION FOR CHANGE

The current Local Govt. Act is fundamentally flawed and in 21st C context and it provides the background for serial dysfunctionalism – possibly surreal dysfunctionalism. The key missing component is that the Act does not articulate local governance's purpose relative to the Act.

Local government is generally said to inherently understand – and all too often subliminally – to serve a two-fold purpose. 

The first being an 'administrative purpose' in regard to the supply of goods and services.  The other purpose being to represent and engage with constituents in determining local public needs and the ways these local needs,wants,and aspirations can be satisfied. 

Nonetheless, there is a ONEdimensionl aspect embedded in Tasmania's current Act which given the Sate's histories is almost understandable.

Local 'representative governance' up to now has been a process devised in a largely 'Western' democratic paradigm that connects representation and administration to deliver various outcomes.  Moreover, Anglocentric sensitivities and colonial cum 'Westminster' sensibilities are privileged when it comes to informing 'placemaking' in the legislation.

In order to understand the purpose, function and structure of local government, the social, cultural and geographic paradigm within which it exists needs some definition and articulation. 

The values invested in and entrusted to local governance needs to be articulated  and much better understood. 

The significance of local government needs to be addressed more overtly. With local government in mind, attention should be directed towards the appropriate structure of local government in a 21st C context – and indeed in a culturally dynamic context. The administrative structure of local government should be linked to a diverse local public policy, its determination and its implementation.  

However, 'Local Govt. management' need not – arguably should not any longer – be intrinsically blended with policy decision making and strategic determination. Indeed, the case for greater delineation is quite compelling.

Therefore it follows that close attention needs to be directed to the composition of 'a council' and its 'purposefulness'.

What is the purpose of local government? 

Essentially, up to now in the 'Anglophilic world' the 'purpose' of local government is largely unspoken and has, relatively speaking, been to:

 
• To provide a system under which a Council can perform the functions of and exercises the powers of governance – locally focused policies and strategies to do with placedness; and

• Act upon the powers conferred upon it as a Council under this authority of a higher level of government; and 

• Ensure the peace, order and good governance of its municipal district, a region, a geographic zone – relative to 'place, community, parish, and district' that understands itself as such.

Given that the geographic area being 'governed' has been relatively small the scope of 'governance' has been wide ranging relative to 19th/20th C communication paradigms. Thus, much of what was understood relative to 'local governance' has been and is being disrupted – and fundamentally so. Along with changing global alignments and developments in information technologies and so on what was is no longerv the case. Yesterday's status quo no longer applies – and it is not  purposeful.

For context please consider the fact that the 'first website' was developed by Tim Berners-Lee at CERN in 1990 and is hosted at info.cern.ch/hypertext/WWW/TheProject.html. It was created to document the World Wide Web project – The informationSUPERhighway – and it was the first to demonstrate the potential of the technology.

Having considered that, now consider the fact that in 1993, the year that Tasmania's Local Govt. Act was passed, there were only 130 websites on the World Wide Web. This number grew rapidly in the following years, reaching 2,738 by 1994 and 23,500 by 1995. However the Tasmanian Local nGovt. Act didn't take the WWW into account. Currently, it is estimated that There are over 1.11 billion websites on the internet. However, a significant portion of these, about 82%, are inactive, meaning only around 201 million are actively maintained and visited. This number is constantly growing, with approximately 48.6 million new websites created in 2024.

I submit that the evolution of the WWW is indicative of a reaol and present need for a shift in MINDsests. In that tells us a great deal, much of which is evidently NOT being considered in the backgrounding for planning processes where STATUSquoism is in evidence. More and more of same is delivered in bureaucratic paradigms and as Einstein pointed out, that's insanity.

In 2004 Ronald Reagan pointed all that out, and from a strategic positioning. A 'generation' later the "mess" Regan by-an-large remains as STATUSquoism still underpins governance's MINDsests. Mistrusting the future makes it extraordinarily difficult to give up the past, but it must be done ... it is over.

Leadership isn't about searching for consensus it is all about 'molding' a consensus. In many planning processes the 'squeak wheel gets the most oil' – often management's squeaks.

Effective 'strategic planning' is the molding of MINDsets that are consensual, purposeful and meaningful. Moreover, such 'leadership' is most effective when it is NOT administered from THEtop and trickling down. Rather it is most effective, in a 21st C context, when it is planned strategically and rhizomaticly [LINK] to deliver a RHIZOMATICstructure.

PURPOSEFUL 21st C LOCAL GOVERNANCE

The reason for which governance exists is its purposefulnes but the current Local Govt. Act does not articulate directly articulate 'purpose' – say, "the purpose of the meeting is to appoint a trustee". 

Looking ahead, clearly we can no longer work on the assumption that the 'purpose' of local governance will be inherently understood given anticipatable climate change, consequent social change and technological disruption. Suggesting that articulating 'purpose' in the Act is a bit like enshrining 'motherhood statements' in legislation. Not so!

Successful business operations can typically put success down to having an understanding of what they are doing and why they are doing it. For example, it is often claimed that the purpose of a gold mine is to make a profit. Not so! It's purpose is to recover/mine gold even if the outcome might be a 'fiscal profit' in Western colonising/colonised economies. 

LINK

The Incas mined gold, and purposefully, but not for a profit. Rather it was done to recover gold, also understood by them as 'GODshit', in order that the people might fashion it into make offerings to the 'GODS' – and as often as not throw it into lakes. Symbolicaly, spiritually and mythologically this is paying repect to the environment, MOTHERearth. Moreover it is culturally and strategically purposeful. The difference between 'purpose' and its related objectives is clear enough.

https://www.abcbullion.com.au/products-pricing/gold

It is also said that the lack of purpose is advantageous in that such a legal instrument offers the freedom to do whatever the governors like – and by extension without restraint and accountability and in secret if that is thought necessary. 

Purposeless governance has very little to recommend it. Science's oldest institution, The Royal Society, from the get-go had a clear and unambiguous statement of purpose, "to generate new knowledge". Later iterations have been to generate new knowledge and new understandings. Currently in Tasmania its stated purpose is to "advance knowledge". Its purposefulness has served the institution well.

A PURPOSE FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT

As an idea that embraces an approach for improving a precinct, city, or region, 'placemaking' is an inspiration for people to work collaboratively to create, reimagine and reinvent public spaces/places that embody a place's sense of community. 

Strengthening the connections between communities and the places they share, placemaking talks about collaborative processes via which people can make and shape public spaces and cultural landscapes in order to develop the layering of shared values. 

Placemaking is more than simply promoting better urban design – better always being ambiguous. Placemaking facilitates innovative patterns of use and pays attention to the geographic, cultural, and social factors that define a place and support its ongoing evolution. 

That is:

•... With community-based placemaking participation at its centre; and

•... With effective placemaking processes being central; and 

•... With the need to capitalise upon local community assets, loca inspiration, and local potential being recognised and honoured. 

It results in the creation of a quality space with amenity relative to the aspirations Communities of Ownership and Interest have for PUBLICplaces. It is that which defines CULTURALlandscapes (the noun)  CULTURALlandscape (the noun/verb) and CULTURALlandscaping (the activity) and in turn it reflects a community's health, happiness, sense of amenity, and wellbeing. 

Here we might usefully muse upon Butan's GNH HAPPINESS INDEX – which strategically prioritises Gross National Happiness (GNH), a philosophy, that focuses on wellbeing and happiness over and above pure economic growth. The Gross National Happiness Index considers various factors beyond Gross Domestic Product. This includes psychological wellbeing, health, education, and cultural diversity. Indeed, it overly talks about the CULTURALlandscape. 

Against this background – albeit not articulated in the current Act – a 'Statement of Purpose' for local governance might well be: 

• To facilitate placemaking in a community context; and 
• Do so in all its dimensions – economic, social, cultural and geographic.

Against this backgrounding, local and specific 'objectives' can sensibly assembled in context along with the functional management structures designed and devised to deliver 'purposeful  governance. 

Once the rationales for each and every objective are articulated it becomes much simpler to develop strategies, time and place specific strategies, via which 'purposefulness' and the relative planned successes of targeted outcomes. Moreover, there is the possibility to set mileposts and benchmarks things that managements would rather not have for the most part.

Also, objectives can be assessed and measured. Indeed, it makes it possible, and more realistic, to identify 'performance indicators' and assess outcomes against expectations.

Given that an 'Act' that does not set out guiding principles, it is by-and-large purposeless, albeit that behind laws and regulations aimed at achieving various things aa kind of purposefulness is implied. Clearly, putting a Local Governance Act in place without overtly articulating its purpose and consequent objectives is unhelpful in that it offers nothing of substance to measure outcomes against. Worst of all, without unambiguous purposefulness there is tacit permission to 'play it loose'.

The notion that 'purposefulness' might be self-evident in any legislation ignores evidence to the contrary.


POLICY  MAKING AND STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT

Tasmania's current LOCAL GOVT. ACT 1993 (LGA) has over time allowed the 'policy determination function' of elected representative to become blended into, and all too often blanded down as well, 'governance's' purpose and function. This is concerning as it has turned that too often it blurs 'governance's accountability with operational management. The consiquence being that transparency is diminished. 

The key factors here being SECTION 65 of the Act along with SECTION 62/.

It seems that the presumption embedded in the Act is that any General Manager appionted to the position will be to 'guarantee' that she/he will have the wherewithal to ... "ensure that any advice, information or recommendation given to the council or a council committee is given by a person who has the qualifications or experience necessary to give such advice, information or recommendation". If so t is sheer folly. 

Moreover, the 'ensurances' embedded here belongs with and is intented to enable 'good accountable governance. 

FundamentalLY management's function is to deliver the polices and strategies it is misplaced with management.

Representational democracy is passing its use-by-date given the advent of the WORLDwideWEB, digital technology, and the SMARTphone. Many argue that it has 'passed' its relevance given the disruption of the status quo [See -[1] [2]-]. waiting in the wing for the cue to do what representational governance is increasingly unable to do is some form of 'direct democracy'. 

The question then arises is, how can this 'ensurance' be relocated to governance –aa I submit that it can be achieved quite simply by:

•  Every policy and strategic decision taken after deliberation should be preceded by a vote on the veracity of the 'expert advice' upon which it depends;

That Council endorses the 'expert advice' by a two thirds majority before taking a vote on a measure requiring such advice; and
The advice be provided at arms-length from management even if mustered by management and elected representatives collaboratively.

SECTION 65 invests far too much authority in the General Manager in a 21st C context. Also, a General ,Manager 's authority to delegate authority must be withdrawn and placed exclusively in the hands of governance to be:

•  Reviewed on a biannual basis and recorded online in an open and transparent way;
• Dependent upon the designated incumbent having the appropriate  qualifications and experience;

SECTION 65 is arguably the most insidious provision in the current Act. When used in combination with SECTION 62 this distorts the functional accountability and the transparency of local governance in Tasmania. Indeed, these measures have been used to invoke confidentiality – invoked by management and inappropriately – in order to avoid unwelcomed investigations.

AN ALTERNATIVE ARRANGEMENT TO ENSURE EXPERT ADVICE

Given the increasing demands made upon local governance and the technological advances since 1993 it is timely that the means via which Councils garner the expert advice they needs a fundamental rethink. 

It is worth remembering  M. J. Wheatley's advice, "There is no power for change greater than a community discovering what it cares about."  Given the opportunity, community members have experience, qualifications and skills aplenty to put to work in placemaking. For whatever reason local governance management operations have become increasingly disinclined to engage with 'community experts'. What has been ignored is out in the community there is an army experts doing what do and they have a great deal of expertise.

aIt ijust the case that at work using it! Citizen's Assemblies /Juries (CJs) were in part founded on the notion that rotation and random selection freed up the possibility of citizens to engage in their governance and to some extent elected representatives are fearful of losing status and authority – things they nominated to aquire via being elected.

For example when being lobbied to support  'participatory governance' the member for Launceston andvex-Deputyb Mayor Launceston, Rosemary Armitage MLC was openly antithetic to the notion that CJs had any merit at all relative to governance given that they, pararaphrased 'were not elected and thus they lack authority'  – Pers Com circa 2020 verification being sought. typically commentators who hold such views  are unmoved by the proposition that it is Jury that decides guilt or innocence in a murder trial BUT it is the Judge who determines the sentence – say a good behaviour bond or life in incarceration for life. . 

That aside, Councils have the capacity to informally co-opt/appoint advisory groups and looking ahead it would be judicious that they be required to do so formally. Moreover, if such a group was to operate at arms-length its advice, and/or member's advice, would more likely to be independent, free and fearless. Moreover, if as happens in some jurisdictions, advisory groups report directly to Councils and their constituencies and are not constrained by protocols that prevent members breaching "operational confidentiality" which at one time precluded advisory group members from formally commenting on any matter via say 'Letters To The Editor' (Pers Com L'ton GM circa 2020) ...

 


APPROPRIATE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY

Next to SECTION 65, SECTION 62 runs a close second to being misplaced in the Act. Essentually

lutruwitaTasmania's "Local Government Legislation Review Reform Directions" that purports to be seeking "flexible, innovative and future focused legislative framework" is blighted almost from the get-go. The 'survey form' respondents to the process are asked/required to complete reveals that, despite the rhetoric, the process is subliminally committed to an outcome which is pretty much more of the same. ./..././/.