THE LOT
////////////////////////////////////////////////////
https://qvmag2017.blogspot.com/
////////////////////////////////////////////////////
ACCONTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY IN LOCAL GOVERNANCE
Dear Director,
Thank you for your letter which arrives at a time when I am convalescing from hospitalisation and for much longer than I had anticipated. Thus I've not been best placed to deal with the implied and distorted critiques embedded in your letter. Nonetheless, I'll make the effort to clarify the position from my perspective as a ratepayer/resident, cultural geographer, researcher and sometime 'honorary facilitator' for a network of concerned citizens et al.
QUESTIONS POSTED TO MAYOR AND COUNCILLORS
In regard to my correspondence with the City of Launceston seeking information about the proposed budget expenditures I refer you to:
- Firstly to the correspondence to Council and I ask that you look at it in context – SEE https://col63233000.blogspot.com/2019/06/re-saved-to-cm-re-launceston-council.html
- Secondly, I refer to the responses and I ask that you consider their adequacy and relevance –SEE http://lcc63.blogspot.com/2019/06/city-of-launceston-transparency-and_23.html
I submit that the response provided to the set of questions I endorsed relative to the 'Cultural Unit' is disingenuous, totally inadequate and nothing less than an exemplar cynical obfuscation. More to the point, the questions were addressed to 'Mayor and Councillors' but were responded to by the General Manager. They were not endorsed on the record by 'Council' except perhaps informally in a closed Council 'workshop'.
These 'workshops' are a contentious practice to say the least. That they have provided the mechanism via which 'governance decisions' are made at various times they must be regarded as 'compromised forums'. In the past it has been sometimes claimed that they are 'illegal', At the very least they are clearly 'untoward' given the decision making goes on in camera and in secret by default..
In any event, their outcomes are a long way away from being transparent and accountable. Questions such as those I've submitted were dealt with in secret well away from public view.
For example the responses to the 5th and 5th questions claim a 'uniqueness' on the City of Launceston's part. There is no evidence for such an assertion and to offer it to avoid a considered answer to a genuine and legitimate question is nothing short of thinly disguised cynical disdainful obfuscation. FOR CONTEXT SEE [http://lcc63.blogspot.com/2019/06/city-of-launceston-transparency-and_23.html] • [http://lcc63.blogspot.com/2019/03/3-question-marketing-development-public.html] * [http://lcc63.blogspot.com/2019/03/2-question-marketing-development-public.html] • [http://lcc63.blogspot.com/2019/06/city-of-launceston-transparency-and_23.html]
However, concerningly the response to my 9th question could be characterised as being an exemplar of a bit of 'smart arse undergraduate avoidance'. At the very least it does no credit to an 'Council officer' of whom the highest level of professionalism should be an automatic expectation – and especially so for an 'operative' whose salary reportedly exceeds the Premier's.
Whatever, the best construction to be offered is that the metaphor was missed. If the question was misunderstood (deliberately?), or seen as too obscure, the professional thing to do is say so.
You seem to be saying that Council has meet expectations under the protocols. What protocols would they be? I might agree that ultimately the questions were addressed but only after considerable persistence on my behalf. I cannot accept that any of this happened in a timely way nor in a spirit of openness and transparent accountability as advocated in your department's excellent "Guide to Good Governance". Indeed, to the contrary!
Distilled to the essentials, the General Manager seems to saying:
- The Cultural Unit's only identifiable purpose is for it to exist;
- That its objectives are entirely to do with ensuring that it continues to exist;
- That the rationales for all this are therefore to do with its continued exist – in order that the incomes and benefits that fall due to 'operational functionaries'persist; and consequently
- The key strategic imperative is to do whatever is required to maintain the status quo and continue to conscript the required funding from current sources – ratepayers and taxpayers.
ADMINISTRATIVE STANDARDS
To quote David Morrison, “The standard you walk past is the standard you accept”. It seems that you are prepared to accept some rather low performance standards without any serious investigation of the apparent shortfalls. Much of the evidence for that can be found in the thread of correspondence that is backgrounding this exchange.
Interestingly, you appear more than willing to accept the General Manager's self-serving assertions, and his deeming, of 'expertise' under the provisions of SECTION 65 of the Act. 'Expertise' cannot be legislated into existence and it appears that Council believes that it can be – or the General Manager at least.
After that you appear more than willing to turn a blind eye towards his/Council's misuse of SECTION 62 all of which does nothing towards accountability and transparency in local governance – or indeed public administration.
The bottom line in respect to the 'Cultural Unit' being that there are serious questions to do the 'purposeful expenditure' of something in the order of $7Million conscripted from ratepayers and extracted from 'the 'public purse' – without accountability let alone without any hint of transparency. If you were to mount any kind of serious independent investigation I put it to you that would find troubling matters that would/aught to trouble you deeply.
GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT
The all too often forgotten principle that applies in Local Govt. is that there are clear distinctions between the roles of governance and management. Governance being to do with 'policy making and strategic directions' and management's being their 'implementation and delivery'. Over two decades at Town Hall these distinct roles have become more and more blurred to a point where it has become a major concern.
Aided and abetted by SECTIONS 65 & 62 of the Act alongside this bureaucratically driven secrecy, masquerading as 'confidentiality', has distanced constituents and elected representatives alike from the frontline of 'civic placemaking' – Council's purpose. Largely this is in deference to management's self-serving imperatives and its deemed, albeit self-assumed, superiority and 'expertise'.
THE SPECTRE OF TREVA ALEN
The all too often forgotten principle that applies in Local Govt. is that there are clear distinctions between the roles of governance and management. Governance being to do with 'policy making and strategic directions' and management's being their 'implementation and delivery'. Over two decades at Town Hall these distinct roles have become more and more blurred to a point where it has become a major concern.
Aided and abetted by SECTIONS 65 & 62 of the Act alongside this bureaucratically driven secrecy, masquerading as 'confidentiality', has distanced constituents and elected representatives alike from the frontline of 'civic placemaking' – Council's purpose. Largely this is in deference to management's self-serving imperatives and its deemed, albeit self-assumed, superiority and 'expertise'.
The word coming down from Town Hall is that there is an 'Organisational Alignment Process' in play. Apparently it is 'secret operational business' and its outcome is about to be revealed from behind the wall of secrecy where it is currently being devised. Obviously, given the jargon, the General Manager has added a new book to his library or perhaps he has attended a 'happy-clappy civic empire building seminar' somewhere.
This revelation poses quite a few serious questions.
This revelation poses quite a few serious questions.
- Will the process improve the city's governance? Highly unlikely given its 'management imperatives'.
- Will it more clearly delineate the distinct and different functions of governance and management? Highly unlikely given its 'management imperatives'.
- Will the process empower governance's accountability and/or facilitate increased transparency? Highly unlikely given its 'management imperatives'.
- Will the process enhance management's accountability and/or facilitate its increased transparency? Highly unlikely given its 'management imperatives'.
- Will the process have any impact at all upon enhanced community engagement and/or community consultation? Highly unlikely given its 'management imperatives'.
Arguably the process is ever likely to turn out as having little or nothing to do with 'better governance'. Moreover, this time it will most likely reveal itself as being aimed at yet another incremental shift towards diluting the authority of the elected representatives. Given that over time 'the elected 12' have clearly abdicated and bent towards management's aspirations. The expectation seems to be that all will slip into place as if it had always been there.
THE SPECTRE OF TREVA ALEN
You seem to invoke a thinly veiled criticism that 'Ms Alen' is playing, or has played, some unconscionable role in the backgrounding to this 'communication exchange'. She has done nothing more, and nothing less, than offer her agency to ensure the privacy of the 'network of networks' that I'm engaged with – largely facilitated by social media. That I might be less concerned than some/most is entirely a matter for myself.
However, I do ask that you consider the level of disingenuousness on display as the General Manager, and by extension the entire Council, blatantly operates behind a veil of self imposed secrecy in avoidance of anything resembling accountability. Of course yet again, at the drop of a hat, SECTION 62 comes into play 'willy-nilly' to isolate, and insulate, 'Council' from any kind of critical discourse.
The very notion that any of this gets to be discussed in any relevant to civic accountability is both insulting and patronising.
The very notion that any of this gets to be discussed in any relevant to civic accountability is both insulting and patronising.
Given the implied reprisals on offer from time to time you might might well ask why it might be that many people might want protect their privacy.
APPROPRIATE COMMUNICATION PROTOCOLS.
You raise the issue of the volume of email traffic attributed to me. Firstly, I make no apology whatsoever for being a consistent and persistent communicator with Council. Even if the General Manager finds it inconvenient, inappropriate or tedious I shall not desist at his bidding.
I'm not trying to win his applause for my research effort, rather I am simply attempting, by-and-large unsuccessfully, to hold Council accountable. Also, wherever appropriate, I seek to plumb the depths of dysfunction and obfuscation on display at Town Hall given that I have nothing to either win or loose.
Sadly it turns out that there is all too much to discover that runs counter to the interests of constituent and 'good governance' more generally.
Moreover, I make no apologies whatsoever for facilitating the communication the concerns that come to the attention of people in the networks I'm engaged with. I've made no secret of any of this.
If the volume of email traffic attributed to me were to be the case it would make me three times as productive as your average 'public servant'. That's highly unlikely.
In any event I am disinclined to take the General Manager's surreal protests seriously while ever he persists in holding himself beyond reproach and functionally unaccountable under the provisions of SECTION 62 & 65.
Moreover, whilst ever he budgets for himself nigh on '$80,000 a week' for a slush fund to counter any criticism of any kind that might come Council's way his complaints have all the characteristics of the pot informing the kettle that it is black.
In any event, this self indulgence was discovered in Council's so called budget process. Interestingly this funding has now been dispersed into multiple allocations throughout where it is less obvious but nonetheless 'available' .
IN CONCLUSION
During my recent hospitalisation I experienced first hand service, known in the 'caring professions' as "unconditional positive regard" being delivered by default. That is so despite the political and bureaucratic dysfunction much discussed in Tasmania's health sector. Nonetheless, one wonders about just how resilient these professionals need to be to maintain their professionalism at great odds.
Conversely, Launceston Town Hall, on the evidence, maintains a stance that by default ensures that its constituency is, by default, disregarded and by-and-large treated with contempt and all too often disdain. I've been researching an 'operation'within Council for well over two decades. All too often from a position 'up close and personal'' I've witnessed the situation deteriorate and particularly so at the senior executive. It gives me no joy to be saying so.
Given the recent experiences at Huon and Glenorchy Councils it is puzzling as to why the City of Launceston has not yet been exposed to any form of 'formal inquiry'. A long time ago such an inquiry should have been tasked to expose the actual level of dysfunction, unaffordable expensive dysfunction. Such an inquiry is need now more than ever to break the the impasse that is bureaucratically and financially hobbling any real attempt at meaningful service delivery.
To be meaningful such an inquiry would need to be totally independent and tasked to interrogate:
• The City of Launceston's record of unambiguous accountability to its constituency;
Given the recent experiences at Huon and Glenorchy Councils it is puzzling as to why the City of Launceston has not yet been exposed to any form of 'formal inquiry'. A long time ago such an inquiry should have been tasked to expose the actual level of dysfunction, unaffordable expensive dysfunction. Such an inquiry is need now more than ever to break the the impasse that is bureaucratically and financially hobbling any real attempt at meaningful service delivery.
To be meaningful such an inquiry would need to be totally independent and tasked to interrogate:
• The City of Launceston's record of unambiguous accountability to its constituency;
• The remuneration levels across the entire Council operation;
• The level of community engagement and consultation that informs decision-making;• The city's constituents unimpeded access to information when, where and for whatever legitimate reason they they seek it;
• Management standards relevant to fiscal management, equitable contractual arrangements and in particular Council's tendering processes;
• The level of community engagement and consultation that informs decision-making;• The city's constituents unimpeded access to information when, where and for whatever legitimate reason they they seek it;
• Management standards relevant to fiscal management, equitable contractual arrangements and in particular Council's tendering processes;
• Asset and resource management and especially so in regard to staffing levels, workplace safety and qualifications;
• The application of SECTIONS 65 & 62 of the Local Govt. Act 1993 with a view to identifying their inadequacies in 21st C Tasmania; and
• The insurance that Council truly has access to appropriate and verifiable 'expert advice' in every aspect of Council's policy determination, strategic development and ongoing operations.
The time is now, not later, not after some 'Organisational Alignment Process', not when something or other has taken place. Unless such an inquiry is robust. Importantly, it must be conducted at arm's-length as constituents, arguably, will have diminishing prospects going forward if the'operation' continues to grows in its splendid isolation insulated from meaningful criticism and critical inquiry.
I look forward with great interest to your response in the near future.
I look forward with great interest to your response in the near future.
RAY NORAMAN
////////////////////////////////////////////////////
hursday, 28 February 2019
Response to Tasmanian Government 2019 review of Local Government Act (LGA) #2
COPY
CONTEXT
It is rarely referred to but it is important to do so here. SECTION 20 of the current Local Government Act 1993 (LGA 1993) describes the role/purpose of councils:
• to provide for the health, safety and welfare of the community
• to represent the interests of the community
• to provide for the peace, order and good government of the municipal area
This puts councils, Local Governance, firmly in the role of placemaking/placescaping or put another way, in the role of the functionaries of 'cultural landscaping'.
Arguably, in the end a Council is involved in no business other than that. Moreover, it is 'the very purpose' for which they are authorised to levy – conscript! – rates and charges to provide an operational recurrent budget.
A clearly articulated 'purpose' in terms of 'civic administration' is that which Key Performance Indicators are founded and the reference that 'councils' need to be tested on/against and held to account for. For practical purposes:
• representatives are elected determine policies and priorities; and
• managers are appointed to carry them out on the ground and in real time.
When the Act was written 25 years ago it is quite apparent that certain assumptions were made in regard to all this KPI founded upon longstanding understandings to do with effective representational 'civic administration'. However, over time circumstances have changed and much of what was the case in 1993 in a 20th Century context is no longer so in a 21st Century context. Much of this change has happened very quickly and the 'change' has been multi-dimensional and dynamic.
For example, if you do not know the name the inventor of the World Wide Web, Tim Berners-Lee, you would know that today there are very few people who could imagine communicating 'effectively' without the WWW. Unquestionably, this development has had an enormous impact upon civic administration that is largely unacknowledged. Sometimes change is resisted given the demographic of those engaged in 'civic administration' . Moreover, the flow-ons that are assumed will have income and social impacts upon elected representatives and managers alike are unwelcome.
Arguably, no business/operation/institution could expect to operate or perform adequately, let alone thrive without the information technologies that the internet delivers. Currently, it is just not possible to meet community/client expectations without access to current communication technologies. That is except for Local Govt. by-and-large that is entrenched itself in a 20th Century mindset albeit that it is no longer either relevant or sustainable. Currently, instead of storing data in hardcopy formats it is stored in 'digital data files'.
It was not until the 46th Anniversary of Hiroshima Day's in 1991 that Berners-Lee published the world's first website from a lab in the Swiss Alps and by 1993 when Tasmania's LGA was drafted there were just 130 websites in the world. The milestone of 1 billion websites was first reached in September of 2014 while today there well over 1.959 billion – and the number is growing exponentially. The Internet is ubiquitous and the assumptions that Tasmania's Local Government Act is based upon are essentially preinternet. Thus these assumptions are totally unable meet current expectations nor meet anything like representing contemporary aspirations for 'cultural placescaping'.
Arguably, the Tasmanian Local Government Act (LGA 1993) is no longer fit-for-purpose in regard to the legitimate aspirations and expectations of local governance's constituency – clearly it is redundant. This becomes all the more true when it is considered that the inhabitants of a cultural landscape – municipality/district/precinct(?) – need, and typically do not not get, adequate representation.
Currently, the representative 'authority' devised to determine the ways their 'cultural landscape' was/is to be 'shaped/configured' is currently dominated by management that is able to self-determine policy priorities in isolation and well away the scrutiny of elected representatives – alderpeople, councillors. For the most part 'council operations' are insulted from and isolated from criticism and critique – and/or largely deaf to it.
Given that 21st C technologies constituents are perfectly able to effectively represent themselves either directly or via an agent, this further compounds the redundancy embedded in 'The Act' in a 21st C context.
In 1993 this was not the case. As time progresses the percentage of people able to represent themselves via a 'device in their pocket', and in 'real time', will like the WWW grow exponentially.
With each incremental 'digital advance' the function of representational local government diminishes incrementally.
PURPOSE AND REPRESENTATION
As above, the 'purpose' of Local Govt in the Act can be realised via:
• The policies enshrined within it with 'Council management' ;
• Guided and directed by a 'place's representatives' – the councillors/alderpeople.
The Act's purpose is actually to shape a 'place' in a social cum cultural context and maintain 'place' in accord with The cultural realities inhabiting 'the place' – municipality, precinct region whatever.
Up to now it has made good democratic and administrative sense to give 'elected representatives' a social licence to effect 'placemaking decisions' on a community's behalf. Clearly, this is no longer the case given the advent of 'the internet and social media'. The mechanisms and technologies already exist to afford constituent and appropriate opportunities to represent themselves either by themselves or via an agent.
Unquestionably, the social cum political dynamics have changed, and fundamentally, albeit that the trickle down effect has not yet been felt in governance all too often. There is a case to be put saying that governance – community, institutional and corporate – has become comfortable with the status quo despite, and because of, its flaws and weaknesses and notwithstanding 'the economies' representational governance has to offer.
Places shapes cultures and cultures are shaped by place.
For practical purposes relevant to when the LGA 1993 was drafted 'purposeful representative governance' was best delivered via the operational structure of a council with:
• Elected representatives who determined the policies and strategies that shape the cultural landscape in accord with the cultural realities of 'the place' and the wishes and aspirations of the Council's constituents;
• Appointed managers and experts in various fields who carry out and realise the policies and strategies determined by the elected representatives.
Under the LGA 1993 in Tasmania management has grown exponentially and largely to satisfy its own ends. Clearly, 'Parkinson's Law' is in play but more to the point, underlings are increasingly requiring underlings, ad infinitum! It is a process of unproductive implosion – and a wasteful one at that.
For example, in the case of the City of Launceston, Tasmania's largest local government jurisdiction, there are approx. 580 employees, that is approx. one employee for every 100 constituents approx. servicing something in the order of 46 thousand residents/constituents. Clearly the 'bureaucratic imperative' is being well served but the outcomes are arguably consistent with Parkinson's Law.
The question arising here is, is there useful and productive 'work' for all those people or would they be more usefully employed elsewhere towards achieving productive entrepreneurial outcomes.
SECTION 65 OF THE LGA 1993
This provision of the LGA 1993 SECTION 65 is well intended but nonetheless it is extraordinarily naive. A well intentioned diligent administrator might not have issues with meeting the obligations invested in this provision. However, it is uncomfortably open to the subjective self-serving 'deeming authority' of an administrator with an agenda.
If there was a straight forward mitigating provision whereby elected representatives and/or constituents could hold managers accountable the provision might then have 21st C relevance. Sadly that is not the case and the provision is fundamentally flawed and all too often it fails.
SECTION 62 OF THE LGA 1993
This provision in the LGA 1993 SECTION 62 turns out as being the most insidious provision within the LGA. Via this provision a GM, and acting alone, can for whatever reason subvert policies and strategic determinations of Council.
Indeed, constituents in Launceston over time have reported contentious use of the provision that permits "[a] general manager [to] do anything necessary or convenient to perform his or her functions under this or any other Act".
Ex-alderman Basil Fitch, a diligent attendee of CoL meetings, attests to a number of incidents over the life of the last Council where SECTION 62 contentiously, and arguably inappropriately, came into play and effectively exclude elected representatives from the decision making.
It is now legendary that Council's decision to grant UTas 'naming rights' for York Park was granted under the provisions of SECTION 62. Likewise, the arrangements for the 'CH Smith Development' loan ($9 Million) had a subsequent 'interest free' loan (reportedly somewhere in the order of $11 Million) attached that was approved under SECTION 62 provisions only to be revealed after the event and in confidence. These are but two prominent exemplars of what quite likely a forensic audit would, as likely as not, would show up as being an 'authority' regularly employed.
While there is an administrative case to be put in support of the provision it has clearly been used in ways that sideline the elected Councillors. Arguably, it has been used to subvert democratic processes.
In combination SECTION 65, and the questionable requirement for the GM to guarantee the expertise of his advice to Council, the SECTION 62 provision subverts 'accountability' . Moreover, it pays no respect whatsoever to any aspiration in regard to 'accountability and transparency' and the Minister's Good Governance Guide.
DELEGATED AUTHORITY
Councils are required to maintain a list of 'Delegated Authorities' and make it available to the public. Some delegations are made by Council and others by the GM. Given the assumptions of 'expertise' in SECTION 65 of the LGA it is typically the case that these 'authorities' are delegated to an 'administrative position' not the person holding the position and holding appropriate qualifications plus experience.
The apparent assumption that's typically made seemingly is that the person holding the position has the appropriate qualifications and/or experience to meet and fulfil the expectations of the delegation on their own account. That may not be the case and it appears that scant attention is given to ensuring that it is.
Given this, there is a very strong case to be put for it to be always so. That is, even if there is a need to delegate an authority outside a council's staff establishment.
Moreover, there is further case to be put where delegations are regularly reviewed, say biannually, to:
• ensure that the list of authorities is up to date and complete;
• that all people holding such an authority currently have the appropriate qualifications and experience; and that
• up to date information is available to the public at all times without reservation – ideally online.
ACCOUNTABILITY
The 'four-year-all-in-all-out' tenure for a councils compromises and dilute's elected representatives' accountability in that it does not provide for performance to be tested for what turns out to be quite a long time.
Apart from that, the Code of Conduct provision currently is both cumbersome and feeble. So much so that a delinquent councillor merely faces the threat of being thrashed with a feather and it seems to apply only to individuals.
It is commonly said that an election is the best available 'accountability device' and it might be given that they happen in a timely way. Also, it only applies to elected representatives not appointed functionaries where employment contracts protect their position – and for the most part rightly so.
This of course dose not discount 'the press' as an accountability device but it is apocryphal that the press can be bought. Thus claims of 'independence' are typically discounted and arguably never more so than in the context of Local Govt.
Against this background, it is clear that the aspiration for accountability in regard to Local Govt. in Tasmania there is a need for more rigorous accountability mechanisms, independent mechanisms. Current information technologies do offer the opportunities to provide them. Social Media is currently a 'go to platform' if backed by mechanisms to mitigate its excesses.
In other jurisdictions there is open access to all records without impediment. In NSW for instance constituents have access to the records of every local governance related meeting – sub-committees, project committees, whatever. In contrast the converse is the case in Launceston at the discretion of the GM under the provisions of SECTION 62 – and this does nothing whatsoever for accountability and transparency.
In recent times 'citizen's/community juries' have been used to add credibility to governance. Likewise, organisations such as the newDEMOCRACY Foundation have been advocating approaches to governance that do not always rely upon 'elected representatives' for credibility. In the light of emerged and emerging technologies in 'communications' the very veracity of assertions made about 'democracy' incrementally wane.
Then there is that famous Churchillian quote that goes "Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." Somehow, it resonates less loudly in a 21st C context. It is just possible that current communication technologies can enhance that which we value in democracy and mitigate against the failures Churchill acknowledges.
No matter what, transparency and accountability must be a fundamental aspiration of Local Govt. and it needs to be said that the LGA 1993, currently, fails 'the pub test' almost all the time.
RE-IMAGING LOCAL GOVERNANCE
To anyone seriously seeking purposeful, transparent and accountable local governance in Tasmania that is affordable and effective, they must be all too aware that current LGA 1993 fails to deliver –and miserably.
It is clear that there is a need to reimagine Local Gov. in Tasmania given that it is well recognised that there are way too many councils with there being 29 for a population of 500 thousand people.
Elsewhere that would be just one to three councils. For example Brisbane City Council is about five time as large with a population of 2,408,223 people. Auckland's population is currently estimated population for the Auckland region was 1.66 million people serviced by Community Boards.
Whereas, in NSW Tasmania's population is approximately equal to four metropolitan councils. Clearly there is no fail-safe population ratio for local governance and its 'placemaking' role given the imperatives of geography and other social cum cultural imperatives.
Given what elected representatives, and their functionaries, have invested in the status quo there are clearly forces at work to by-and-large maintain the status quo. That is so, albeit it being demonstrably fiscally too expensive plus in general terms lacking efficiency a effectiveness. On the evidence, politically forced amalgamations are unpalatable on one hand and are not being delivered on the other.
As has been previously the case 'government' has patched up the system and applied 'band-aids' here and there with the long term outcomes remaining pretty much the same as before 'the repair' was initiated. Clearly it is time for a reality check.
Any serious consideration of a way forward will lead to a total re-imagination of the LGA 1993 as not to do so will simply carry its failures forward without achieving much at all.
However, what might the re-imagination entail given that:
• The current LGA 1993 is currently obsolete and redundant as a 21st C instrument of governance;
• 21st C circumstances offer technologies and communication strategies that enable people to effectively represent themselves in regard to their purposeful objectives in placemaking/placescaping; and
• The community/precinct/regional cultural dynamics currently in play are increasingly diverse and multidimensional and liable to change quickly.
Quite simply there is a need for a system that is 'fleet-of-foot' and responsive to the needs and aspirations of constituencies. That may not always be via representative democracy even if it may be in part. Commentators often look toward Ancient Greece and see it as "the cradle of democracy". They lament the passing of its democratic practices and a great deal has been written about its lessons that might be applied in a modern context. Yet there are other examples in existence that can show us how to ‘do democracy' and do it better.
For instance, in regard to the 'Swiss model' we think about Switzerland’s frequent use of referenda. While this is an important feature to reference it is part of a larger pattern of power sharing. This power sharing is known as the 'magic formula' that prevents a majority from dominating minorities where political actors and the general population work together to achieve stability and prosperity.
The Swiss government is highly decentralised and the Swiss system has three layers: the federal, the cantonal, and the communal. Other Western countries also have a local level of governance, but Switzerland accords the local level much more decision-making power.
In a Tasmanian context it is important to note that there are other ways to imagine local governance. In New Zealand Community Boards that were created by the local government reforms in 1989. Currently there are 110 community boards in operation, both urban and rural, working with local authorities throughout New Zealand.
The purpose of a community board is to:
• represent and act as an advocate for the interests of the community;
• consider and report on any matter referred to it by their overarching authority, and any issues of interest to the community board;
• make an annual submission in regard to expenditure;
• maintain an overview of services provided within the community; and
• communicate with community organisations and special interest groups in the community, and
• undertake any other responsibilities delegated to them.
Clearly, there are options beyond amalgamation once it is acknowledged that Tasmania's system of local governance is not delivering the outcomes people are currently aspiring towards.
All that stands between a better form of local governance that delivers outcomes is time. Indeed it is time for change and the time is now.
HOW DO WE MOVE FORWARD TOWARDS 21st CENTURY LOCAL GOVERNANCE SYSTEM?
Given that it is currently articulated that the purpose of local governance is to:
• to provide for the health, safety and welfare of the community
• to provide for the health, safety and welfare of the community
• to represent the interests of the community
• to provide for the peace, order and good government of the municipal area
A more inclusive and more equitable 21st C way forward might well be found if it is actually sought and the following 'steps forward' might well deliver better outcomes for Tasmanians
• Place all Tasmanian councils under administration for 3 possibly 4 years
• Establish an Interim Local Governance Commission with up to 12 appointed full-time commissioners with the appropriate skills and expertise and the chair/president being an appointee from outside Tasmania – Victoria, NSW, New Zealand
• Delegate authority to the commission to deal with and oversight of the current council operations, their recurrent budgets for local and to represent the interests local communities whilst incrementally collaborating with a network of operations
• Initiate the appointment of a series Community Boards to operates as advocates for their 'community precincts' and where appropriate in collaboration with adjoining Community Boards and precincts
• Initiate an inquiry and research to interrogate equitable forward funding for a system of local governance able to deliver the services communities require and in a timely manner
• Initiate research to discover the State's resource in collaboration with other branches of governance, the corporate sector, precinct networks and institutions based in the State
• Initiate a series of Community Forums to generate a proactive discourse focused on providing communities with 21st C outcome relevant to their precincts/communities
• Initiate a recruitment process for a Local Governance Commission supported by a network of Community Boards to operate as the State's local governance mechanism
Ray Norman
Independent Researcher
Cultural Geographer
Cultural Producer
For and on behalf of the Launceston Concerned Citizens Network
REFERENCE LINKS
• The Concept of ‘Community of Ownership and Interest’
• Auditing Placedness
• Introduction to Coolabah special issue on placescape, placemaking, placemarking, placedness … geography and cultural production
• MUSEUMS: Stakes, Shares & Ownerships
////////////////////////////////////////////////////
20. Functions and powers
(1) In addition to any functions of a council in this or any other Act, a council has the following functions:(a) to provide for the health, safety and welfare of the community;(b) to represent and promote the interests of the community;(c) to provide for the peace, order and good government of the municipal area.(2) In performing its functions, a council is to consult, involve and be accountable to the community.(3) A council may do anything necessary or convenient to perform its functions either within or outside its municipal area.(4) A council may transfer to a single authority or a joint authority –(a) any of its assets and liabilities on any condition it determines; or(b) any of its employees.(5) A council may –(a) acquire, hold, dispose of and otherwise deal with property; and(b) sue and be sued in its corporate name.
62. Functions and powers of general manager
(1) The general manager has the following functions:(a) to implement the policies, plans and programs of the council;(b) to implement the decisions of the council;(c) to be responsible for the day-to-day operations and affairs of the council;(d) to provide advice and reports to the council on the exercise and performance of its powers and functions and any other matter requested by the council;(e) to assist the council in the preparation of the strategic plan, annual plan, annual report and assessment of the council's performance against the plans;(f) to coordinate proposals for the development of objectives, policies and programs for the consideration of the council;(g) to liaise with the mayor on the affairs of the council and the performance of its functions;(h) to manage the resources and assets of the council;(i) to perform any other function the council decides.(2) The general manager may do anything necessary or convenient to perform his or her functions under this or any other Act
Local Government Act 1993
Version current from 1 July 2019 to date (accessed 3 August 2019 at 11:15)
(1) A general manager must 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.(2) A council or council committee is not to decide on any matter which requires the advice of a qualified person without considering such advice unless –(a) the general manager certifies, in writing –(i) that such advice was obtained; and(ii) that the general manager took the advice into account in providing general advice to the council or council committee; and(b) a copy of that advice or, if the advice was given orally, a written transcript or summary of that advice is provided to the council or council committee with the general manager's certificate.(3) . . . . . . . .(4) . . . . . . . .
THE ACT ... https://www.legislation.tas.gov.au/view/html/inforce/current/act-1993-095#GS65@EN
////////////////////////////////////////////////////
hursday, 28 February 2019
Response to Tasmanian Government 2019 review of Local Government Act (LGA) #2
COPY
CONTEXT
It is rarely referred to but it is important to do so here. SECTION 20 of the current Local Government Act 1993 (LGA 1993) describes the role/purpose of councils:
• to provide for the health, safety and welfare of the community
• to represent the interests of the community
• to provide for the peace, order and good government of the municipal area
This puts councils, Local Governance, firmly in the role of placemaking/placescaping or put another way, in the role of the functionaries of 'cultural landscaping'.
Arguably, in the end a Council is involved in no business other than that. Moreover, it is 'the very purpose' for which they are authorised to levy – conscript! – rates and charges to provide an operational recurrent budget.
A clearly articulated 'purpose' in terms of 'civic administration' is that which Key Performance Indicators are founded and the reference that 'councils' need to be tested on/against and held to account for. For practical purposes:
• representatives are elected determine policies and priorities; and
• managers are appointed to carry them out on the ground and in real time.
When the Act was written 25 years ago it is quite apparent that certain assumptions were made in regard to all this KPI founded upon longstanding understandings to do with effective representational 'civic administration'. However, over time circumstances have changed and much of what was the case in 1993 in a 20th Century context is no longer so in a 21st Century context. Much of this change has happened very quickly and the 'change' has been multi-dimensional and dynamic.
For example, if you do not know the name the inventor of the World Wide Web, Tim Berners-Lee, you would know that today there are very few people who could imagine communicating 'effectively' without the WWW. Unquestionably, this development has had an enormous impact upon civic administration that is largely unacknowledged. Sometimes change is resisted given the demographic of those engaged in 'civic administration' . Moreover, the flow-ons that are assumed will have income and social impacts upon elected representatives and managers alike are unwelcome.
Arguably, no business/operation/institution could expect to operate or perform adequately, let alone thrive without the information technologies that the internet delivers. Currently, it is just not possible to meet community/client expectations without access to current communication technologies. That is except for Local Govt. by-and-large that is entrenched itself in a 20th Century mindset albeit that it is no longer either relevant or sustainable. Currently, instead of storing data in hardcopy formats it is stored in 'digital data files'.
It was not until the 46th Anniversary of Hiroshima Day's in 1991 that Berners-Lee published the world's first website from a lab in the Swiss Alps and by 1993 when Tasmania's LGA was drafted there were just 130 websites in the world. The milestone of 1 billion websites was first reached in September of 2014 while today there well over 1.959 billion – and the number is growing exponentially. The Internet is ubiquitous and the assumptions that Tasmania's Local Government Act is based upon are essentially preinternet. Thus these assumptions are totally unable meet current expectations nor meet anything like representing contemporary aspirations for 'cultural placescaping'.
Arguably, the Tasmanian Local Government Act (LGA 1993) is no longer fit-for-purpose in regard to the legitimate aspirations and expectations of local governance's constituency – clearly it is redundant. This becomes all the more true when it is considered that the inhabitants of a cultural landscape – municipality/district/precinct(?) – need, and typically do not not get, adequate representation.
Currently, the representative 'authority' devised to determine the ways their 'cultural landscape' was/is to be 'shaped/configured' is currently dominated by management that is able to self-determine policy priorities in isolation and well away the scrutiny of elected representatives – alderpeople, councillors. For the most part 'council operations' are insulted from and isolated from criticism and critique – and/or largely deaf to it.
Given that 21st C technologies constituents are perfectly able to effectively represent themselves either directly or via an agent, this further compounds the redundancy embedded in 'The Act' in a 21st C context.
In 1993 this was not the case. As time progresses the percentage of people able to represent themselves via a 'device in their pocket', and in 'real time', will like the WWW grow exponentially.
With each incremental 'digital advance' the function of representational local government diminishes incrementally.
PURPOSE AND REPRESENTATION
As above, the 'purpose' of Local Govt in the Act can be realised via:
• The policies enshrined within it with 'Council management' ;
• Guided and directed by a 'place's representatives' – the councillors/alderpeople.
The Act's purpose is actually to shape a 'place' in a social cum cultural context and maintain 'place' in accord with The cultural realities inhabiting 'the place' – municipality, precinct region whatever.
Up to now it has made good democratic and administrative sense to give 'elected representatives' a social licence to effect 'placemaking decisions' on a community's behalf. Clearly, this is no longer the case given the advent of 'the internet and social media'. The mechanisms and technologies already exist to afford constituent and appropriate opportunities to represent themselves either by themselves or via an agent.
Unquestionably, the social cum political dynamics have changed, and fundamentally, albeit that the trickle down effect has not yet been felt in governance all too often. There is a case to be put saying that governance – community, institutional and corporate – has become comfortable with the status quo despite, and because of, its flaws and weaknesses and notwithstanding 'the economies' representational governance has to offer.
Places shapes cultures and cultures are shaped by place.
For practical purposes relevant to when the LGA 1993 was drafted 'purposeful representative governance' was best delivered via the operational structure of a council with:
• Elected representatives who determined the policies and strategies that shape the cultural landscape in accord with the cultural realities of 'the place' and the wishes and aspirations of the Council's constituents;
• Appointed managers and experts in various fields who carry out and realise the policies and strategies determined by the elected representatives.
Under the LGA 1993 in Tasmania management has grown exponentially and largely to satisfy its own ends. Clearly, 'Parkinson's Law' is in play but more to the point, underlings are increasingly requiring underlings, ad infinitum! It is a process of unproductive implosion – and a wasteful one at that.
For example, in the case of the City of Launceston, Tasmania's largest local government jurisdiction, there are approx. 580 employees, that is approx. one employee for every 100 constituents approx. servicing something in the order of 46 thousand residents/constituents. Clearly the 'bureaucratic imperative' is being well served but the outcomes are arguably consistent with Parkinson's Law.
The question arising here is, is there useful and productive 'work' for all those people or would they be more usefully employed elsewhere towards achieving productive entrepreneurial outcomes.
SECTION 65 OF THE LGA 1993
This provision of the LGA 1993 SECTION 65 is well intended but nonetheless it is extraordinarily naive. A well intentioned diligent administrator might not have issues with meeting the obligations invested in this provision. However, it is uncomfortably open to the subjective self-serving 'deeming authority' of an administrator with an agenda.
If there was a straight forward mitigating provision whereby elected representatives and/or constituents could hold managers accountable the provision might then have 21st C relevance. Sadly that is not the case and the provision is fundamentally flawed and all too often it fails.
SECTION 62 OF THE LGA 1993
This provision in the LGA 1993 SECTION 62 turns out as being the most insidious provision within the LGA. Via this provision a GM, and acting alone, can for whatever reason subvert policies and strategic determinations of Council.
Indeed, constituents in Launceston over time have reported contentious use of the provision that permits "[a] general manager [to] do anything necessary or convenient to perform his or her functions under this or any other Act".
Ex-alderman Basil Fitch, a diligent attendee of CoL meetings, attests to a number of incidents over the life of the last Council where SECTION 62 contentiously, and arguably inappropriately, came into play and effectively exclude elected representatives from the decision making.
It is now legendary that Council's decision to grant UTas 'naming rights' for York Park was granted under the provisions of SECTION 62. Likewise, the arrangements for the 'CH Smith Development' loan ($9 Million) had a subsequent 'interest free' loan (reportedly somewhere in the order of $11 Million) attached that was approved under SECTION 62 provisions only to be revealed after the event and in confidence. These are but two prominent exemplars of what quite likely a forensic audit would, as likely as not, would show up as being an 'authority' regularly employed.
While there is an administrative case to be put in support of the provision it has clearly been used in ways that sideline the elected Councillors. Arguably, it has been used to subvert democratic processes.
In combination SECTION 65, and the questionable requirement for the GM to guarantee the expertise of his advice to Council, the SECTION 62 provision subverts 'accountability' . Moreover, it pays no respect whatsoever to any aspiration in regard to 'accountability and transparency' and the Minister's Good Governance Guide.
DELEGATED AUTHORITY
Councils are required to maintain a list of 'Delegated Authorities' and make it available to the public. Some delegations are made by Council and others by the GM. Given the assumptions of 'expertise' in SECTION 65 of the LGA it is typically the case that these 'authorities' are delegated to an 'administrative position' not the person holding the position and holding appropriate qualifications plus experience.
The apparent assumption that's typically made seemingly is that the person holding the position has the appropriate qualifications and/or experience to meet and fulfil the expectations of the delegation on their own account. That may not be the case and it appears that scant attention is given to ensuring that it is.
Given this, there is a very strong case to be put for it to be always so. That is, even if there is a need to delegate an authority outside a council's staff establishment.
Moreover, there is further case to be put where delegations are regularly reviewed, say biannually, to:
• ensure that the list of authorities is up to date and complete;
• that all people holding such an authority currently have the appropriate qualifications and experience; and that
• up to date information is available to the public at all times without reservation – ideally online.
ACCOUNTABILITY
The 'four-year-all-in-all-out' tenure for a councils compromises and dilute's elected representatives' accountability in that it does not provide for performance to be tested for what turns out to be quite a long time.
Apart from that, the Code of Conduct provision currently is both cumbersome and feeble. So much so that a delinquent councillor merely faces the threat of being thrashed with a feather and it seems to apply only to individuals.
It is commonly said that an election is the best available 'accountability device' and it might be given that they happen in a timely way. Also, it only applies to elected representatives not appointed functionaries where employment contracts protect their position – and for the most part rightly so.
This of course dose not discount 'the press' as an accountability device but it is apocryphal that the press can be bought. Thus claims of 'independence' are typically discounted and arguably never more so than in the context of Local Govt.
Against this background, it is clear that the aspiration for accountability in regard to Local Govt. in Tasmania there is a need for more rigorous accountability mechanisms, independent mechanisms. Current information technologies do offer the opportunities to provide them. Social Media is currently a 'go to platform' if backed by mechanisms to mitigate its excesses.
In other jurisdictions there is open access to all records without impediment. In NSW for instance constituents have access to the records of every local governance related meeting – sub-committees, project committees, whatever. In contrast the converse is the case in Launceston at the discretion of the GM under the provisions of SECTION 62 – and this does nothing whatsoever for accountability and transparency.
In recent times 'citizen's/community juries' have been used to add credibility to governance. Likewise, organisations such as the newDEMOCRACY Foundation have been advocating approaches to governance that do not always rely upon 'elected representatives' for credibility. In the light of emerged and emerging technologies in 'communications' the very veracity of assertions made about 'democracy' incrementally wane.
Then there is that famous Churchillian quote that goes "Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." Somehow, it resonates less loudly in a 21st C context. It is just possible that current communication technologies can enhance that which we value in democracy and mitigate against the failures Churchill acknowledges.
No matter what, transparency and accountability must be a fundamental aspiration of Local Govt. and it needs to be said that the LGA 1993, currently, fails 'the pub test' almost all the time.
RE-IMAGING LOCAL GOVERNANCE
To anyone seriously seeking purposeful, transparent and accountable local governance in Tasmania that is affordable and effective, they must be all too aware that current LGA 1993 fails to deliver –and miserably.
It is clear that there is a need to reimagine Local Gov. in Tasmania given that it is well recognised that there are way too many councils with there being 29 for a population of 500 thousand people.
Elsewhere that would be just one to three councils. For example Brisbane City Council is about five time as large with a population of 2,408,223 people. Auckland's population is currently estimated population for the Auckland region was 1.66 million people serviced by Community Boards.
Whereas, in NSW Tasmania's population is approximately equal to four metropolitan councils. Clearly there is no fail-safe population ratio for local governance and its 'placemaking' role given the imperatives of geography and other social cum cultural imperatives.
Given what elected representatives, and their functionaries, have invested in the status quo there are clearly forces at work to by-and-large maintain the status quo. That is so, albeit it being demonstrably fiscally too expensive plus in general terms lacking efficiency a effectiveness. On the evidence, politically forced amalgamations are unpalatable on one hand and are not being delivered on the other.
As has been previously the case 'government' has patched up the system and applied 'band-aids' here and there with the long term outcomes remaining pretty much the same as before 'the repair' was initiated. Clearly it is time for a reality check.
Any serious consideration of a way forward will lead to a total re-imagination of the LGA 1993 as not to do so will simply carry its failures forward without achieving much at all.
However, what might the re-imagination entail given that:
• The current LGA 1993 is currently obsolete and redundant as a 21st C instrument of governance;
• 21st C circumstances offer technologies and communication strategies that enable people to effectively represent themselves in regard to their purposeful objectives in placemaking/placescaping; and
• The community/precinct/regional cultural dynamics currently in play are increasingly diverse and multidimensional and liable to change quickly.
Quite simply there is a need for a system that is 'fleet-of-foot' and responsive to the needs and aspirations of constituencies. That may not always be via representative democracy even if it may be in part. Commentators often look toward Ancient Greece and see it as "the cradle of democracy". They lament the passing of its democratic practices and a great deal has been written about its lessons that might be applied in a modern context. Yet there are other examples in existence that can show us how to ‘do democracy' and do it better.
For instance, in regard to the 'Swiss model' we think about Switzerland’s frequent use of referenda. While this is an important feature to reference it is part of a larger pattern of power sharing. This power sharing is known as the 'magic formula' that prevents a majority from dominating minorities where political actors and the general population work together to achieve stability and prosperity.
The Swiss government is highly decentralised and the Swiss system has three layers: the federal, the cantonal, and the communal. Other Western countries also have a local level of governance, but Switzerland accords the local level much more decision-making power.
In a Tasmanian context it is important to note that there are other ways to imagine local governance. In New Zealand Community Boards that were created by the local government reforms in 1989. Currently there are 110 community boards in operation, both urban and rural, working with local authorities throughout New Zealand.
The purpose of a community board is to:
• represent and act as an advocate for the interests of the community;
• consider and report on any matter referred to it by their overarching authority, and any issues of interest to the community board;
• make an annual submission in regard to expenditure;
• maintain an overview of services provided within the community; and
• communicate with community organisations and special interest groups in the community, and
• undertake any other responsibilities delegated to them.
Clearly, there are options beyond amalgamation once it is acknowledged that Tasmania's system of local governance is not delivering the outcomes people are currently aspiring towards.
All that stands between a better form of local governance that delivers outcomes is time. Indeed it is time for change and the time is now.
HOW DO WE MOVE FORWARD TOWARDS 21st CENTURY LOCAL GOVERNANCE SYSTEM?
Given that it is currently articulated that the purpose of local governance is to:
• to provide for the health, safety and welfare of the community
• to provide for the health, safety and welfare of the community
• to represent the interests of the community
• to provide for the peace, order and good government of the municipal area
A more inclusive and more equitable 21st C way forward might well be found if it is actually sought and the following 'steps forward' might well deliver better outcomes for Tasmanians
• Place all Tasmanian councils under administration for 3 possibly 4 years
• Establish an Interim Local Governance Commission with up to 12 appointed full-time commissioners with the appropriate skills and expertise and the chair/president being an appointee from outside Tasmania – Victoria, NSW, New Zealand
• Delegate authority to the commission to deal with and oversight of the current council operations, their recurrent budgets for local and to represent the interests local communities whilst incrementally collaborating with a network of operations
• Initiate the appointment of a series Community Boards to operates as advocates for their 'community precincts' and where appropriate in collaboration with adjoining Community Boards and precincts
• Initiate an inquiry and research to interrogate equitable forward funding for a system of local governance able to deliver the services communities require and in a timely manner
• Initiate research to discover the State's resource in collaboration with other branches of governance, the corporate sector, precinct networks and institutions based in the State
• Initiate a series of Community Forums to generate a proactive discourse focused on providing communities with 21st C outcome relevant to their precincts/communities
• Initiate a recruitment process for a Local Governance Commission supported by a network of Community Boards to operate as the State's local governance mechanism
Ray Norman
Independent Researcher
Cultural Geographer
Cultural Producer
For and on behalf of the Launceston Concerned Citizens Network
REFERENCE LINKS
• The Concept of ‘Community of Ownership and Interest’
• Auditing Placedness
• Introduction to Coolabah special issue on placescape, placemaking, placemarking, placedness … geography and cultural production
• MUSEUMS: Stakes, Shares & Ownerships
No comments:
Post a Comment