ELECTOR POLL FORMS NOW AVAILABLE VIA EMAIL

PETITION FORMS are now available to be sent to you via eMAIL in a PGF format. 

This allows you to print off the forms you need to collect signatures in your street and among your friends and associates who are on the ELECTORS ROLL FOR LAUNCESTON. 

Please request an email with the form attached now!

ADDRESS: launcestonprojects@bigpond.com

KEEP THE COUNCIL ACCOUNTABLE NOW

SEE: http://lcc63.blogspot.com.au/p/electors-poll-petition.html

LETTER TO SUPPORTERS REGARDING PETITION No2

Dear Ratepayers and supporters,

Thank you to those who signed the original petition requesting that Launceston City Council convene a Public Meeting to discuss the gifting of the land at Inveresk (the old Velodrome cycling track site next to York Park Stadium) and the Willis Street public car park site (the old Goods Railyard on the opposite side of the North Esk River)  and who were able to attend the Public Meeting that was finally concluded last week on 21st June at Albert Hall. 

The 132 members of the public attending the Public Meeting overwhelmingly opposed the gifting of the land  to the University, compared to less than 10 of those who were willing to vote AGAINST the Motions put to the meeting.

Since the Meeting, The Examiner Newspaper (who has admitted publicly its bias in supporting the move by UTas to Inveresk) received 138 Facebook comments, all opposing the proposal. That level of comment to a media Facebook story is extraordinary!

Unfortunately, Launceston City Council is not obliged to accept the outcome of the Public Meeting, and we are sure that LCC will continue to progress the gifting of the 2 pieces of land to UTas.

However, the Local Government Act 1993 allows for petitioners to proceed to sign a SECOND PETITION, once a Public Meeting has been held on the topic, this time requesting LCC to facilitate an ELECTOR POLL of all Launceston people on the Launceston Elector Roll.

A minimum of 1000 elector signatures (we aim for say, 1500 so as to ensure its validity) must be collected and presented by 20 July 2016. 

We expect this will be a major undertaking in such a short time, however, with your assistance, we hope we can succeed.

If you are able to print off the Petition Form, then we ask that you:

• email LauncestonPR@bigpond.com asking for the PDF Form;
• sign the form and encourage as many friends and acquaintances on the Launceston Roll, to do likewise. 
• post original copies ack to our collection point (P.O. Box 513 Launceston 7250); OR
• simply drop them into my letterbox at 41 High Street, when you are passing. 
• You may also like to send a copy of the Petition to your friends, by email.

If you do not have printing facilities, please ask me for copie(s) to be forwarded to you.
In the meantime, here are a few ‘dot’ points to summarise last Tuesday night’s Public Meeting:

• Criticism of Council’s lack of due diligence, including construction problems/costs and issues with developing on the flood plains of the North Esk River and potential seismic risks
• The track record of UTas in consistently chipping away at the Launceston campus making it but a shadow of what it was 20 years ago. There is no confidence this pattern will change
• 10,000 PLUS extra students can’t be guaranteed. It is an aspirational figure based on demographics not fact, and a fraud to say that is the kind of figure that will eventuate from this proposal
• Absence of support by electors
• Risk of UTas plan not fully eventuating or finding success – the punt
• Reliance on trust versus a properly defined and proven business plan
• The Northern Campuses remaining lesser branches of UTas without the ability of independent initiatives to remain sustainable
• Traffic congestion and parking inadequacies for UTas and other users of the precinct
• We need a uniquely Northern campus independent of UTas 

Please do not hesitate to contact me should you like to discuss your position on this land give away, or have any ideas on how we may further engage with Launceston Electors in relation to this matter.

If you are concerned about the high level of LCC Rates that you are being required to pay, and at how LCC spends your hard-earned money, then please sign the Petition. Council’s valuation of these two pieces of land is $4.5M and apart from the loss of this significant sum that would lessen the Launceston rate burden, the land currently produces a healthy income to Council that helps offset rates paid by its citizens. Once this becomes University owned, not even rates are payable.

Many thanks,

Regards,

Lionel MorrellPresident
Tasmanian Ratepayers Association Inc.
41 High Street
Launceston TAS  7250
T  03 6331 6144
e  li82303@bigpond.net.au

The Postponed Public Meeting

Notice of Public Meeting

Public Meeting 7 June 2016 postponed to 21 June 2016

The public is advised that at the Public Meeting held at the Albert Hall, Launceston at 7pm on Tuesday 7 June 2016 in response to a petition received by the Council Meeting, the subject matter being:

1.    That the Launceston City Council call a Public Meeting for the purpose of discussing the Council's decision to transfer (free gift) land, known as Willis Street Car Park and Old Velodrome

2.    Call on Council to rescind the motion passed by the Full Council Meeting 9th November 2015 to transfer said land (free gift) to UTAS

3.    That the said land be placed for sale on the open market via a public auction with a Reserve Price of $5 million,

the following decisions were taken:

1.    That Mr Don Wing AM is appointed as chairperson for the purposes of the Public Meeting; and

2.    That in view of the flood crises that is threatening Launceston and with respect to the efforts and pleadings by the petitioners and their representative for this Public Meeting to be rescheduled to a later date since yesterday, such a request having been refused by Council's representatives, this meeting now be adjourned forthwith and resume at this same venue on Tuesday 21 June 2016 at 7pm, so that those people attending can now return home safely.

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Meeting will be held in Albert Hall, corner of Tamar and Cimitiere Streets Launceston, commencing at 7pm on Tuesday 21 June 2016 to consider the matters sought by the petitioners, namely:

1.    That the Launceston City Council call a Public Meeting for the purpose of discussing the Council's decision to transfer (free gift) land, known as Willis Street Car Park and Old Velodrome

2.    Call on Council to rescind the motion passed by the Full Council Meeting 9th November 2015 to transfer said land (free gift) to UTAS

3.    That the said land be placed for sale on the open market via a public auction with a Reserve Price of $5 million.

The chair of the Public Meeting shall be Mr Don Wing AM and the Meeting shall be conducted in accordance with the Local Government Meeting Procedures (Regulations) 2015, as appropriate. The agenda of the meeting will be:

1.    Opening remarks from the Mayor, Alderman A M van Zetten

2.    Introductory remarks from the Chair, Mr Don Wing AM

3.    Report on submissions by the General Manager under section 60A(4) of the Local Government Act 1993 (Tas)

4.    Statements of position (15 minutes each)

(a)  Council

(b)  Petitioner

5.    Motions on the subject matter

6.    Close

Written submissions in relation to the subject matter have been summarised by the General Manager and will be available to those attending the Public Meeting and can be viewed at www.launceston.tas.gov.au.

Robert Dobrzynski

General Manager

UNANAMOUS DECISION TO POSTPONE THE PUBLIC MEETING

June 7, 2016, 8:20 p.m.... CLICK HERE

A public meeting to discuss the City of Launceston’s transfer of land to the University of Tasmania has been postponed for two weeks due to the ongoing flood emergency.  ......... The public meeting at the Albert Hall in Launceston on Tuesday.   ......... About 100 people filed into the Albert Hall just before 7pm on Tuesday to attend the meeting, which had been organised in early May.   .........  A motion to postpone the meeting until June 21 was put to the floor just after chair Don Wing was appointed.   ......... A number of attendees spoke to the motion, many urging the meeting to support it, but some voicing their disappointment at the “waste of time.”   ......... Former alderman Basil Fitch told the meeting that petitioners had tried to persuade the council to postpone the meeting throughout Monday and Tuesday.   .........  Launceston general manager Robert Dobrzynski said the council had been in a difficult position because he did not believe they had the “prerogative to make unilateral decisions” on cancellation.   ......... He said the decision had been to convene the meeting and then the meeting could determine whether to postpone in fairness to all parties.   .........  A petition on the UTAS land transfer deal was presented to council in March.  .........  The petition called on the council to hold a public meeting on the decision to transfer the Willis Street Car Park and Old Velodrome.  .........  It also called on council to rescind the transfer passed at the meeting of November 9, 2015, and for the land to be placed for sale on the open market with a reserve auction price of $5 million.

INVITATION PUBLIC MEETING TUES JUNE & AT 7PM ALBERT HALL

NEW NEWSLETTER OUT SOON

CONCERNED CITIZENS NEWSLETTER OUT SOON CLICK HERE

LOCAL GOVERNANCE AND THE LOCAL GOVT. ACT

CLICK HERE TO READ THE FULL STORY

SHARED ENTRY: http://tasratepayers.blogspot.com.au/2015/12/council-investigations-and-local.html

Tasmania's director of local government has recommended that all Glamorgan Spring Bay councillors take a training course on their role and responsibilities. .......... The recommendation was contained in a report on the council that found while it operated reasonably well, council meetings were often unproductive. .......... Director of local government Phillip Hoysted investigated the council in response to complaints and made 18 recommendations.  .......... Mr Hoysted welcomed the council's response. .......... "There's only one [point] where we have a difference of opinion and that only relates to whether the general manager and the Mayor should meet with individual councillors or with the council as a whole to discuss issues and concerns, but that's a relatively minor matter," he said. .......... "No, the council has been very positive about the way in which they've responded." .......... Mr Hoysted said he would monitor the implementation of his recommendations. "In my covering letter to the Mayor I did ask that they develop an implementation plan that measures progress and reports regularly to both the council and myself," he said.... EDITED 

What's to be said? Firstly, this is the first council report in of the three councils that are currently 'under investigation'. The other two, apparently, are currently under active investigated. 

Reports from the council areas suggest that submissions are being called for from individuals and presumably from groups as well. ………... This suggests that "Something [might be] rotten in state of Denmark" (Hamlet Act 1, scene 4, 87–91). 

As in Hamlet, its the "state of Denmark" rather than just "Denmark" because there is the symbolic implication is that the fish is rotting from the head down and that all may not be well at the top of the political hierarchy down. 

There is a good case to be put that Tasmania’s Local Govt. Act 1993 is well past its 'use-by-date' given the level of dysfunctionalism that is seemingly becoming increasingly evident across council jurisdictions. 

It has often been said that “Tasmania is over governed” which carries the innuendo that, euphemistically at least, its governance draws upon too small a ‘gene-pool’. This may or may not be the case.

The political rattling going on about the ‘A’word, amalgamation, clearly needs to be more than a rattle. The Minister needs to push somewhat harder despite the resistance that’s bound to come from council administrations all over. 

After all there are salaries and superannuation packages at stake, some being very generous. 

Recent tinkering with Local Govt. has not quelled the disquiet and more than occasionally something resembling increasing alarm is detectable among ratepayers.

Therefore, this report; the first of three council investigations; given its recommendations; should be seen by ratepayers’ as a strong signal that it is Local Govt. per se that should be 'under investigation'. 

There are ratepayers all over contemplating better ways Local Govt. can be delivered and with more 

accountability. 

In the end its accountability that is the burning issue and it does not look like the disquiet is going away anytime soon.

THE SALE DECISION – Good? Bad? Indifferent? What?

FROM THE EXAMINER: "THE Penny Royal car park is free to pass into the hands of developers JAC Group, after the Launceston City Council on Monday passed a motion to sell the land. Josef Chromy's JAC Group leases the land from the council for $10 a year in a long-term arrangement, on the condition they provide a free public car park for anyone attending the Penny Royal complex or the Gorge. General manager Robert Dobryznski will now be able to negotiate a price for the land ...........

However does Mr Dobryznski know what this land is 'worth' to Launcestonians? The next question is, to whom is he accountable other than himself under SECTION 65 of the Local Govt Act?

We need to remember Alderman Robin Mckendrick's disagreement with council retaining this land ..... wrong headed as it was. Apparently he thinks the car park is worthless to council. Launcestonians can only hope that his assessment doesn't have any influence at all on the price Mr Dobryznski determines in secret and that seven aldermen will give the nod to .... if they are asked.

Mr. Dobryznski needs to remember that eventually the price paid to council will become available to the public. He had better have a good defence for what he agrees upon. Interestingly there might have been other interested parties .... even now.

You have to wonder who was thinking what about who in regard to Alderman Danny Gibson's statement "It's a very useful piece of land, once it's sold it's gone." when they voted.

Interestingly the mayor voted on the sale of this land. Why? There was a precedent set by his predecessors that became a convention of a kind in regard to contentious decisions such as the sale of public land. It was intended to set the mayor apart and therefore they abstained! It's more than interesting that the mayor in fact voted on this sale.

There is something most of us are not thinking about. It's that the JAC Group is looking to Launceston's ratepayers to subsidise developments in the Penny Royal area. The group seems to be assuming that whatever they have to pay for the land, it will be invested in such projects, not invested in bringing down Launcestonian's exorbitant rates.

This is the strangest decision making process, and one that's quite warped. What's more its one that's likely to come back on the perpetrators in time. 

It certainly looks like accountability is right out the window ..... at least for now.

For further information email LauncestonPR@tassie.net.au

LAUNCESTON'S LAST 2015 MEETING: TAStimes LINK

CLICK HERE TO READ ON TASMANIANtimes

newDEMOCRACY NEWS ONLINE

CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO ENLARGE

Click here to go to the newsletter

http://democracy21tasmaina.blogspot.com.au/

Local Government, Social Media and Accountability

Click above to enlarge

Launceston City Council, rather its General Manager Robert Dobrzynski, seems to like social media. Also, he apparently sees it as the new-way-to-go in respect to community consultation and accountability.

There is that old, old bureaucratic dictum "never go into a meeting unless you already know its outcome." Social media is very good for enabling that and for the most part it does not provide credible evidence for anything much except for its own very existence.

However, properly used and effectively networked, the Internet and social media can deliver extraordinary outcomes.

Increasingly Launceston City Council, and to various degrees other councils also, as a consequence of the Local Govt. Act 1993 are finding hiding-places in their council operation to disguise, mask, and  sometimes secrete, various classes of information.

Thursday’s EXAMINER, when it hit the streets with its ink barely dry, carried somewhat flabbergasting news(?) ..... Launceston City Council’s general manager, regards, face-to-face meetings as “antiquated” and that ”we[?] do not reply [to questions] at a public meeting because people do not come out to public meetings.”

The question hanging there is who, in the current context, does “we” refer to? Is it himself, is it his staff or is it the mayor and/or aldermen? Indeed, who is the council here? Is it the general manager? Or is it the Mayor and aldermen?

It seems that through his assertion Robert Dobrzynski has posed a number of questions to do with accountability that require answers.

It also seems that hubris can breed hubris and that Robert Dobrzynski is deeming that SOCIAL MEDIA automatically counts for MEANINGFUL COMMUNITY CONSULTATION even when its manipulated in ways that exponents of Machiavellianism would approve of – indeed would perhaps advocate and congratulate.

Launceston’s general manager may well think face-to-face public meetings, AGMs included, are antiquated but quite simply the current Local Govt. Act 1993 requires them to be held albeit in accord with antiquated rules. 

They should not be seen as an opportunity to hold ratepayers and residents, council constituencies, in contempt,.

By extension, it now appears that it is in fact the Local Govt. Act that is “antiquated” and that it no longer fits the circumstances of the 21st C.

Moving on however, was Launceston’s 2015 AGM conducted and in accord with the Act?

The  AGM’s consequent, and belated, report in the Examiner put paid to any notion that Launceston City Council is serious about effective communication via social media and the Internet more generally.

Notably, Launceston City Council has not posted a media release on its website since March 2014. Its website tells us that there is an online newsletter but there is no archive. Facebook is notorious for burying information in trivia, not the least the council's page. 

Likewise, social media 'feedback' can be, and typically is, orchestrated and massaged. All of which can add up to a kind of opacity masquerading as 'transparency' and 'consultation'. 

Administrative secrecy typically points to some necessity to hide information. What's being hidden? Why?

Ratepayers – conscripted constituency of investors – rely entirely upon the official and verifiable records in order to discover the extent to which their interests are being served and to assess the value of dividends they are, or are not, receiving or that are, or aren't,  being delivered.

In what manner does the general manager Robert Dobrzynski propose that legitimate questions from ratepayers and others get an answer? Is it the case that he believes that it is now his role to answer all questions and only then at his discretion? Under his vision of accountability are the aldermen, the ratepayers' representatives: 

• Redundant and surplus to operational requirements?
• A hangover from the past and antiquated and outmoded concept?
• Merely the authorisation mechanism for managerial income via their constituencies?

The Local Govt. Act 1993 cannot, should not, be construed in the way it appears to be. However, it is nonetheless antiquated and no longer fit for purpose. 

That said, it is not management's role to reinvent/reimagine accountability with its own aspirations and ambitions prioritised.

Ray Norman 10-12-2015

MEDIA RELEASE: Launceston's Annual General Meeting 2015

Click above to enlarge

 There is a growing number of concerned citizen and residents in Launceston who are despairing at the ‘goings on’ at their city’s council chambers. 

This is especially so in regard to Monday afternoon’s Annual General Meeting at Launceston’s Town Hall.

Launceston council’s AGM proceedings, despite there being much to report on, has been absolutely ignored by the press. Why?

Launceston is Tasmania’s largest council with the largest operating budget in the state. It is also legendary that Launceston's council levies the highest rates in the State.

In consideration of all this, the council’s accountability to its citizens is no small thing.

It is now abundantly clear that the city’s council is totally out of touch with its citizenry.

This is demonstrated by Launceston's AGM being inadequately promoted and poorly attended.

All things considered, unsurprisingly the meeting was extremely poorly attended given what is at stake. In fact, questions have even been raised in regard to the state of the meeting given that a quorum might not have been in attendance throughout the meeting.

Curiously, Mayor van Zetten reportedly threatened to remove the Hon. Rosemary Armitage MLC, an ex-alderman, from the meeting. What's that about?

Furthermore, in the light of the council committing the city to the gift of public land to the University of Tasmania, despite public disquiet, it is rather concerning that the city is so outwardly disinterested in its accountability and citizen’s concerns.

In fact, printed copies of council’s financial report were not available to many residents because too few had been printed.

Is the lack of press attention is being welcomed?

What's more, how might citizens ask informed questions about the city’s expenditures if the financial reporting was not available to them?

Despite their “statutory adequacy”, the council’s financial reports lack detail and they hardly provide the level of reporting that a truly accountable corporate entity should be providing to its constituency and stakeholders.

On what evidence can performance be measured? Also, how can achievements be truly assessed?

If Launcestonians feel like they are being treated like mushrooms in a dark room, perhaps they shouldn’t be taken aback. Dumbfounded yes! Surprised no!

For further information email LauncestonPR@tassie.net.au

TURNING BACK THE CLOCK IN LAUNCESTON

LAUNCESTON’S 100-year-old town clock is not one you can set your watch by ... click here to read ths story online

The story goes that Launceston’s iconic town clock has been chiming at, and telling, the wrong time raising the likelihood that people relying upon it being late for appointments etc. 

However, is that all there is to this?

Apparently the clock has been telling us several minutes late, it looks like increasingly so as well, that a new hour is upon us.

Reportedly this is all due to “temperature changes which can affect the [clock’s] mechanism”. If that was all the time that is being lost in Launceston and it would be very reassuring to think that its only a matter of temperature.

Now these are “Westminster chimes", and they're quite loud, and they happen on the quarter hour, and only on the hour from 11pm to 6am and their wrongness is therefore not a good look.

General Manager Robert Dobryznski reports that the clock had been fixed and that everything was back to normal but he doesn’t tell us what that is.

He does say however that ‘‘it’s not uncommon with a more than 100-year-old mechanism for the clock to get off time, but when it’s wrong, it’s not wrong for long,’’ he said.

Now that is reassuring and it’s good to know that Town Hall is in charge of the Post Office clock and that we can rely upon it no matter what.

But wait, Mr. Dobryznski now tells us that ‘‘changes in temperature can affect the mechanism, either speeding it up or slowing it down [and that] we monitor it and make regular adjustments as necessary.”

But is Mr. Dobryznski telling us that Town Hall has both ‘Aging’ and  ‘Climate Change’ under  its control and that everything can be fixed by tweaking our ‘clock mechanisms’?

Actually it seems that what is being considered here, flagged possibly, hidden deep behind the clandestineness at Town Hall is that in order to really ‘fix things’ and the ‘clock’ is to shut down its ageing, temperature sensitive, Westminster chiming mechanism altogether, well just shut it up.

Given the clock’s unreliability, and people being more prone to being late, and tourists being woken at ungodly hours, Mr. Dobryznski may well be considering silencing the problem and fixing everything up all at once for all time.

The clock was installed above the Post Office in Launceston in 1909  but a debate has raged over the chimes ringing throughout the night in an area surrounded by tourist accommodation.

However, Mr. Dobryznski will surely have the answer at his fingertips and like he says if its "wrong, it’s not wrong for long.’’

As they sometimes say, when there is more to unfold “watch this space.”

SMOKE, MIRRORS, AGMS AND ACCOUNTABILITY

CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO ENLARGE

This overview of Launceston City Council's performance in The EXAMINER is deceptive to say the least. General Manager Robert Dobrzynski uses the newspaper to guild the lily and avoid any acknowledgement that he, and others, have been predicting significant deficits in the upcoming years.

If those predictions are 'on the money', as he'd claimed earlier, it is hard to see how a puny $80,000 "surplus" is anything to crow about nor might it represent anything that could be characterised as strong fiscal position.

Quite simply 'the amount' is entirely insignificant and it merely proves that the council operation can contain its spending to the available funds in the conscripted slush fund that is the Council's recurrent budget. Anything else would be incompetent!

In fact, this is a prime example of 'The Micawber Syndrome' relative to cost centres (councils!) where 'bliss' is defined by staying within budgetary constraints and 'hell' is invoked by exceeding them.

The first thing to be said about the fiscal reporting that GM Dobrzynski presents, and oversights, is that it is vacuous.

Moreover, 'the figures' appear to be designed to conceal the true dimension of the City of Launceston's operation rather than transparently reveal them. CLICK HERE TO GO TO THE REPORTING

It is rather interesting that this characterisation of the city's 'fiscal position' is presented by a General Manager alone without the endorsement of the Mayor and Aldermen. It also carries a latent message of its own – a somewhat poignant message. Why is it so?

Launceston City Council has two chartered accountants among its aldermen, the Mayor being one. If accountability is something ratepayers are looking for there is not a lot they can rely upon in the apparently self serving assurances of a General Manager speaking alone and in total isolation from  the ratepayers' representatives.

ANNUAL GENERAL MEETINGS  

Annual General Meetings (AGM) have a purpose and for local government and their purpose is essentially no different to that of any, indeed all other corporate bodies.

Municipal AGMs are gatherings of the aldermen and ratepayers that are required by law to be held each calendar year. The main purpose of an AGM is to comply with legal requirements to:

1. Present the audited accounts to be assessed in accord Council's Strategic Plan;
2. Approve the audited accounts as being a true fiscal record of Council's operation relative to the year in question and the Council's Strategic Plan;
3. Present and receive operational reports relative to the various components to the Council operation  and assess them relative to Council's Strategic Plan;
4. Allow management and aldermen to provide answers to ratepayer's questions placed on notice;
5. Allow management and aldermen to provide answers to ratepayer's questions not placed on notice; and
6. Transact any other General Business that the meeting may deem appropriate relative to the Council operation and its Strategic Plan.

In brief, AGMs exist as a mechanism to ensure, and to fulfil, the important requirement to deliver on accountability in an ongoing manner.

Given the state of accounts now being presented to the meeting it is hard to imagine how ratepayers, or even aldermen, attending  could approve the pared-down audited financial accounts as they are presented. That is unless they have additional privileged inside knowledge.

To the extent that this is the case, the current fiscal report does not represent anything that represents meaningful accountability to ratepayers. At least not for those who are only able to access the this summarised and abbreviated financial report.

Essentially, ratepayers at an AGM are asked to approve the council's accounts on trust given that the Auditor General has conducted a professional and independent audit. Presumably the Auditor General has access to more detailed records than those made available to ratepayers.  Arguably, it's a matter of expediency in the end!

Nonetheless, with all the best intentions, auditors are looking at a different class of accountability, the minimum requirement level(?), where as 'the constituency' is more inclined to look for a multidimensional brand of accountability – and the evidence that their individual expectation have been delivered upon.

However, expediency or no, the formal requirement of those in attendance at the upcoming Launceston City Council AGM, according to its agenda, will not even be given the opportunity to formally approve the financial accounts. Given their scanty status it doesn't seem possible that the meeting could indeed do so – except on the Auditor General's and the General Manager's say so.

Importantly, there is no other opportunity to examine the accounts in search of 'evidence' except possibly by some drawn out 'Right To Information' application. This situation hardly equates with 'meaningful accountability'.


LAUNCESTON'S AGM'S CREDIBILITY  

The advertising and marketing of Launceston's AGM calls into question its credibility, and its ability, to deliver on its purpose in a 21st C context. 

There can be no argument that LCC's AGM ticks all the right boxes in regard to the statutory requirements put in place to ensure an AGM is credible.

It is just the case that these requirements were invoked in the 20th C and arguably they no longer fit the circumstances of the 21st C.

There are 20th C reports of Launceston's AGM that tell us that typically an AGM "pulled a crowd of 100 plus". How was that?

Back then invitations were sent by the Mayor to a network of ratepayers. As a marketing strategy it clearly worked compare to recently this 'marketing method' albeit that it might have been a marketing strategy that might well draw negative critiques to do with Machiavellianism.

Whatever, the comparisons are stark if we start to look at say last year's 2014 Launceston LCC AGM. That meeting apparently drew an attendance of as few as something like less than 10 attendees.

The 21st opportunities that could enable the achievement of purpose for the annual accountability reality check that in reality is an AGM's only purpose are there and applicable.

So called 'new technologies' can now facilitate that which not so long ago was totally out of reach. Digital communications are transforming corporate, social and cultural paradigms and attention needs to be paid to this.

DOING ACCOUNTABILITY BETTER

The 21st C evolution of 'citizens' assemblies' is a case in point where their credibility is enhanced by current communication technologies.  A Citizens' Assembly – sometimes invoked as a Citizens' Jury or Panel – is a body formed from the citizens of a modern state/constituency to deliberate on an issue or issues of importance.

The membership of a citizens' assembly is randomly selected, as is the case with juries. The purpose is to employ a cross-section of the public to study and consider the options available to a constituency on a question/s and/or to propose answers to the question/s through rational and reasoned discussion. Typically they use various methods of inquiry such as directly questioning experts.

The notion of Citizens’ Assemblies has at its core the objective/aim of reinstalling trust in the political process by the means of the citizenry's direct participation and inclusion in decision-making.

Even under the most vociferous of defences for the upcoming LCC's AGM – save for the Auditor's General's role and credibility – there  a yawning credibility gap that can only be filled by the calling of another 'community meeting' where the constituency is given access to the kind of fiscal details available to shareholders of 'corporate entities' of all sizes.

Ray Norman Dec 6 2015