Sunday, May 24, 2015

Battle continues over Council neglect to mow nature strip - MORE BROKEN PROMISES


CLICK HERE TO READ THIS STORY
Battle continues over Council neglect to mow nature strip: More Broken Promises

The man that mowed Miss Fergusson's nature strip
Miss Barbara Fergusson continues to battle with LCC over the neglect of the nature strip outside her house in Hillary Street.

To re-cap, In December 2014, on the day of Launceston’s Saturday Xmas Parade Mayor van Zettan and his daughter personally cut the grass that had been seriously neglected for months, causing Australia Post to threaten to refuse to deliver Miss Fergusson’s mail (see previous blog).

Then, somewhat prematurely as regrowth was minimal, a council workcrew cut it again during the afternoon of January 21.

However, in spite of continuing complaints by Miss Fergusson, it has not been cut since (4 months of neglect).

On Thursday 14th May, LCC Director Harry Galea promised Miss Fergusson during her regular telephone call of complaint, that the grass would be cut the following week.......but Miss Fergusson is still waiting and the grass keeps growing.

Perhaps a practical solution to this ongoing wrangling (there was a time Miss Fergusson says that LCC cut the grass 6 times/year) is for LCC to pave over the grassed area. In the absence of an operating ‘work for the dole’ employment scheme, Council’s shrinking resources are becoming less able to undertake basic maintenance responsibilities.......unless the ratepayer happens to live in a more upmarket area of the city, where n’ere a blade, leaf or acorn seems to get seriously out of place.

Miss Fergusson is not alone with her concerns, and particularly in steeper areas where the topography is very awkward, grass and noxious weeds reign supreme.

Please let this be the last posting on this topic.

Lionel Morrell
President

Tasmanian Ratepayers Association Inc.

Saturday, May 23, 2015

LETTER TO LCC ALDERMEN AND GENERAL MANAGER: QVMAG COLLECTION SECURITY

Mayor, General Manager and Council,

I believe that it is reasonable to assume that the current QVMAG Collection Policy that the institution is operating with has not been presented to, nor has it been endorsed by Council – the  institution’s governing body and its policy determiner

I’m also given to understand this unendorsed ‘policy’ deliberately consolidates within it the institution’s deaccession policy – that is the policy relevant to the disposal and dispersal of redundant, damaged and unsafe items in the QVMAG's collections.

I am also led to believe that the draft policy is in fact the current and functional operational guidelines despite the fact that the policy has neither been presented to nor approved by council. 

If this is not the case, can you inform me what in fact is the status of the QVMAG’s collection Policy?


Furthermore, can you advise me of what the current operational guidelines are in fact and what their status may be?

The draft policy provided to me by the QVMAG's Director (click here to see a copy) sets out that:
  • “If [‘deaccession’ is] approved by the Director and the object has a value greater than $1000 the proposal is referred to Council for their consideration.
  • If [‘deaccession’ is] approved by the Director and the object has a value of less than or equal to $1000 the Curator /Collection Manager arranges for the disposal of the item.
  • If Council approves of the deaccession of an item with a value more than $1000, the Curator/Collection Manager arranges for the disposal of the object. “
The first issue that posses a problem with the ‘presumed draft policy’ is the notion that the ‘value’ of a cultural object/artefact or a scientific specimen can be realistically defined in dollar terms.

If 'value' is to be defined by some other criteria, given the General Manager's obligations under SECTION 65 of the Local Govt. Act, what independent expert advice does the GM, or will he, rely upon in determining ‘the vvalue’ and thus the appropriateness of deaccession when advising councilthe institution’s Trustees?

Given the QVMAG Director’s often stated position that, paraphrased, ‘the QVMAG’s collections need to be rationalised’, how does the GM anticipate that this process will/can take place under current operational arrangements? Indeed, does Council, as the QVMAG's Trustees, endorse this aspiration?

Moreover, can the GM advise, or has the GM advised, council of the need to deaccession any material from the QVMAG’s collections since Jan 2014 and up until the present?

If so, what material, in what timeframe, for what reasons and by what process?

Presuming that the only material that would be a candidate for formal deaccession is that material that has been formally accessioned into the QVMAG’s collections, has any cultural material, or material of scientific interest, held informally by the QVMAG, been ‘disposed of’ since January 2014? 

If so, what material, in what timeframe, for what reasons and by what process?

In regard to the cultural and scientific material that is held by the QVMAG:
  • Has an audit of this material been undertaken?
  • Has an evaluation been undertaken relative to its cultural, scientific value and its consequent  and appropriate dollar value?
  • If so, who has undertaken the evaluation, in what context and when?
  • Has a strategy been put in place relevant to this material’s retention or disposal?
  • If so, what time frame is anticipated as being either appropriate or achievable in regard to deaccessioning or disposing of cultural and scientific material held by the QVMAG?
In the context of rationalising the QVMAG's overall operation towards achieving sustainability, or a greater level of sustainability, the questions posed above are of considerable interest to ratepayers and the QVMAG’s Community of Ownership and Interest. This is especially so in the context of the MOU signed with the university and the flagged consolidation of the QVMAG onto one site.

Furthermore, by extension, these questions ultimately run to the security of the QVMAG collections currently valued at something in excess of $240 million and funded by, and held in trust on behalf of ratepayers, taxpayers, donors and sponsors.

As an independent Launceston ratepayer, and as a cultural researcher, I look forward to Council's, and the GM's, responses to the questions posed above.

Regards,

Ray Norman
zingHOUSEunlimited
The lifestyle design enterprise and research network
 Trevallyn TAS. 7250

End Message

LETTER TO LCC ALDERMEN: QVMAG Collection & Deaccesion Policy Determination

TO: Mayor & Aldermen

Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 13:30:01
To: Ald. Albert van Zetten, LCC Records 
Cc: Peter Gutwein [Minister for Local Government], Phillip Hoysted ,Vanessa Goodwin [Minister for the Arts]

Dear Albert,
I have written to the General Manager last Monday (copied below) asking a relatively simple and straight forward question and one that only he has the information required to answer it. I’ve not received a response or even an acknowledgement of the receipt of my email. The draft(?) collection policy provided to me by Richard Mulvaney some time ago is also attached here as I had attached it to my email to the GM. CLICK HERE TO SEE A COPY

The substance of the question goes to the appropriateness of the QVMAG, as a Publicly Funded Cultural keepingplace, operating in the 21st C without, in my opinion, a contemporaneously relevant collection policy. There are no other policy positions more important to a cultural institution such as the QVMAG than its Collection Policies and by extension its Deaccession Policy and its consequent management processes.

Furthermore, for whatever extraordinary reason, it appears that ‘management’ has determined that it is appropriate (convenient?) to embed the institution’s Deaccession  Policy within the Collection Policy. I suggest that once expertly scrutinised other concerns are likely to emerge relative to the kind of ‘policy’ somewhat reluctantly(?) provided to me at my request but seemingly unavailable to other interested parties – at least not easily or freely.

Over recent years I have been advocating the review and renewal of the QVMAG Collection and Deaccession Policies. As the QVMAG Trustees you are accountable to the institution’s constituency – ratepayers, taxpayers, donors, sponsors researchers, scholars, et al.–  and thus it is incumbent upon you to ensure that you are receiving appropriate advice upon which you can make your decisions – independent advice, expert advice, considered advice. 

This is especially so when it comes to ‘policy determination’ and the review of management outcomes relative to ‘Trustee determined advice’.

As Trustees and ‘stewards’ of a collection that is significant in the context of collections that collectively constitute the ‘national cultural estate’ I put it to you that:
  1. The policies you put in place need to be relevant to contemporaneous cultural sensibilities and sensitivities;
  2. Alert to policy making elsewhere that is consistent with ‘best practice’ at work in public cultural institutions;
  3. The policies you put in place need to be in the public domain and provide the level security reasonably expected of the institution by its constituency;
  4. Policy determinations undertaken by you need to happen in a timely way and mindful of ‘the trust’ that is invested in you as the Trustees of the QVMAG collections; and
especially so in regard to SECTION 65 of the Tasmania’s Local Govt. Act. Furthermore, all this is relevant to the ways Section 65 can be, or has been, applied to the stewardship of QVMAG collections and your policy determinations in respect to the QVMAG, one of Australia’s significant cultural institutions.

This is a matter that I’ve raised in various Council forums over time and that have by-and-large gone unanswered and I put it to you that is evidenced in the policy document attached. Also, in the light of aspirations articulated over time, and recently, in regard to the “rationalisation” of the QVMAG collections recent developments pose particular concerns in regard as to how that might be done generally, and in particular in accord with what ‘policies’, by what processes and in what timeframe.

I look forward to Council’s response, indeed your response as Trustees, to the situation I put before you with considerable interest and concern.

Regards,

Ray Norman
zingHOUSEunlimited
The lifestyle design enterprise and research network
 Trevallyn TAS. 7250

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Forwarded Message
From: Ray Norman
Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 17:19:20 
To: Robert Dobrzynski 
Subject: QVMAG Collection & Deaccesion Policy

Dear Robert,

I write to you as the manager concerned with facilitating the preparation of LCC Agenda papers. As you may be aware I have an interest in the QVMAG’s Collection Policy and the Deaccession Policy now embedded within it – See attachment proved to me by Richard Mulvaney 21.04.2015. I’m aware that this policy has been under development for a very long time. This year I enquired about its development in January and to my knowledge the policy has not yet been presented to the Aldermen/Trustees for their consideration.

For some context to my question:
  • Ignoring previous correspondence with Richard Mulvaney and yourself I have been seeking information in regard to the QVMAG Collection and Deaccession Poilicy(ies) since February 2014;
  • Early in March 2014 , as a  member of the MGAB,  I received information via Richard Mulvaney that there was an in-house QVMAG Collections Policy under development that included a Deaccesion component;
  • Early in April 2014 , as a  member of the MGAB, I provided Richard Mulvaney with suggestions for a redraft of the QVMAG Collections Policy;
  • In January this year, 2015, I requested  a progress report on the policy and it be presented to the Aldermen/Trustees; and
  • In late April I received the Collection Policythat I’m given to understand will at some time be presented to the Aldermen/Trustees for endorsement/approval/implementation with it being “approved by the [QVMAG?] Executive Management Committee 18/02/2015”.
Interestingly, against this background there does not appear to be any evidence that the MGAB has formally considered this/these policies and clearly the progress towards ‘Trustee approval” has been glacial for whatever reasons none of which, I put to you, can be attributed to the complexity of the policy as it stands.

The key question arising out of the above is to do with the appropriateness of the policy and by extension, what independent ‘expert advice’ will you be relying upon when this policy is indeed presented to the Aldermen/Trustees for their consideration. As you have reminded me on several occasion it is your role to ensure this “expert advice” and I am, along with the Aldermen/Trustees I presume, keen to know what the source of that advice may be.

I look forward to your early advice on this matter as I believe that it something of considerable importance at this time.

Regards,

Ray Norman
zingHOUSEunlimited
The lifestyle design enterprise and research network
 Trevallyn TAS. 7250

End Message

Wednesday, May 20, 2015

RATE EQUITABILITY!


THE Northern Midlands Council is asking Launceston Airport operators to pay up on more than two years of outstanding rates. 

This is according to the council, which has been seeking a meeting with federal Infrastructure Minister Warren Truss to intervene in the matter for some months. 

Paul Hodgen, general manager of the Launceston Airport, which is owned by Australia Pacific Airports Corporation, said on Tuesday he could not comment because the matter was before the courts ... CLICK HERE READ MORE

There must be sympathy expressed for NMC ratepayers because otherwise, quite apart from the catchup payments of 2 years, it means that rates charged to other ordinary ratepayers will have to increase by 6% to cover the deficit.

Also the value of the Municipal Area as determined by the Valuer General is increased by the improved value of the Launceston Airport hence charges such as the Fire Services Levy charged by the State Government via NMC has to be spread over the remaining ratepayers, yet another deficit.

We also have sympathy for other municipalities such as Launceston, who have more than their fair allocation of non-ratepaying entities such as the University of Tasmania who do not pay the extra charges either, adding $millions to the rate burden of the long-suffering battlers there who pay the highest rates in the country, not to mention the Regional Facilities they fund for the benefit of Northern Tasmania.


Perhaps one day the principle of fairness will be applied across the board in all municipalities?

Lionel Morrell
President, Tasmanian Ratepayers Association Inc
.

Sunday, May 17, 2015

WHEN WILL LAUNCESTON'S ALDERMEN STAND UP FOR RATEPAYERS?

BLOG EDITORS' NOTES: There is increasing evidence that Launceston's Aldermen are being treated with disregard and contempt by management. This year's budget process is clearly one whee the 'officers' have set the income levels they want and have immunised themselves against close scrutiny. 

The proposed budget is as ex-Alderman Ian Routley has said is an "officers budget", its nothing more, nor anything less.  

In effect the officers are asking the Aldermen for a SLUSH FUND to maintain the present level of funding PLUS 2.5% when the CPI is less than 1%. AND these people imagine themselves as PUBLIC SERVANTS.  Someday this unaccountability must STOP!

The call for an administrator to be appointed for Launceston City Council has increasing relevance as each day passes based on the evidence before ratepayers looking for accountability!

CLICK HERE TO GO TO SOURCE
THE president of the Tasmanian Ratepayers Association has called into question the Launceston City Council's management abilities after the organisation revealed it may increase its burial prices by 90 per cent over four years. 

The council's 2015-16 draft budget papers include a proposal to increase the Carr Villa and Lilydale Cemetery plot rates by 15 per cent in 2014-15 and 25 per cent in 2015-16. 

It was reported Saturday that people within the sector confirmed the rates were proposed to rise by 25 per cent a year for the next three years.

Tasmanian Ratepayers Association president Lionel Morrell said it was apparent the council had a budgeting issue. 
"Launceston is the largest and wealthiest municipality in Tasmania and it cannot balance its books," he said. 

"It's a question of their ability to manage the place, it's a question of why they're not increasing cremation prices at the same rate as burials and it's criticising their maintenance standards - there hasn't been enough care taken in maintaining and developing the cemetery for some time.

Launceston City Council general manager Robert Dobrzynski said the council was determined to ensure Carr Villa's financial sustainability. 

He said burials carried costs not associated with cremations, including ongoing maintenance. "The facility is currently running at a loss of $350,000 which is being subsidised by Launceston ratepayers in the rates they pay, despite the facility serving the entire region," he said. 

"The City of Launceston commissioned an independent benchmarking study of cemeteries across Tasmania and around Australia which found our fee structure was well below other cemeteries." 

Submissions to the draft budget papers will be discussed at a committee meeting on Monday

–  END  – 

Friday, May 8, 2015

LETTER TO THE EDITOR ­ Reimagining Inveresk

Sirs,

Speculation about the university colonising the QVMAG site to reimagine the Inveresk site, speculation that sparked Rosita Gallach’s story this week, demonstrates Launceston Council’s vulnerability to penny-pinching coercion.
 
In deals like the ones being wondered about at Inveresk, they typically have the university seeing itself operating from the high moral ground with Launceston’s ratepayers being the vulnerable soft targets.
 
If there is to be any fairness in the university colonising the QVMAG’s, indeed Launcestonian’s, heritage assets at Inveresk in order for it to fulfil its aspiration to bring ‘Town & Gown’ closer together, well the university really needs to be offering some equitability.
 
For instance, albeit adjoining the QVMAG Royal Park campus, the Wellington Street TAFE building is hardly a fare nor equitable barter.
 
Alternatively, the Examiner’s soon to be evacuated heritage site might be a more fitting trade but either way the university needs to lead in a cooperative and collaborative investigation of the possible mutual re-imaginings.

Locating the museum next to the Paterson Street carpark would enhance the City’s heart in ways university lecture theatres and offices are unlikely to.

There are win-win outcomes to be had if they are looked for but there needs to equity from the get go.

Ray Norman
Trevallyn


http://www.examiner.com.au/story/3055557/the-word-is-that-inveresk-could-be-the-place-to-be/
The word is that Inveresk could be the place to be
By ROSITA GALLASCH May 4, 2015,


WITH an expanded modern university campus, student accommodation and a cinema complex on the way, Inveresk could become a major hub of activity for Launceston.

The University of Tasmania has made no secret of its plans for the Inveresk site and to expand its offerings at that location, but little has been said about the future of the Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery.

For those who haven't heard the whispers, it has been suggested that the university take over the space now occupied by the QVMAG at Inveresk.

The Launceston City Council-operated museum would then move next to its refurbished gallery at Royal Park and into the space occupied by TasTAFE offices, some courses and migrant classes.

Where those TasTAFE offices and courses go is anyone's guess, but most probably the Alanvale campus, leaving just hospitality and nursing courses next to Launceston College.

This would be a three-way deal between the university, the council and the state government.

In ongoing discussions around deregulation, the university's vice-chancellor Professor Peter Rathjen has already said the Northern campus loses money and, although universities are places of education and intellectual thought, they can only exist in a business context.

The university's Provost Professor Mike Calford said on ABC radio last Friday morning that the university envisioned a focus on three main schools in Launceston: education, nursing and architecture.

One of these is already based at Inveresk, and the other two could be easily moved
there.

Although the School of Visual and Performing Arts is now at Inveresk, it makes no sense for it to remain with millions of dollars being poured into a hi-tech Tasmanian College of the Arts development in Hobart.

The potential move and little funding allocated in the council's draft budget towards works at the museum's Inveresk site could certainly lend itself to this idea.

There is $90,000 in capital works set aside for the QVMAG Inveresk site, which includes storage cases, a security swipe card system and a railway awning cover - certainly nothing of significance.

A further $46,000 has been allocated for works at the Wellington Street Royal Park site, including TasTAFE store roofing and downpipe repair and science collection store.

Although this is only $46,000, if the council was able to move into the Education Department building, it may alleviate some of the cost pressures it feels burdened with regarding the operation of a regional facility with little state government help.

The museum could be mothballed in the short term, as was the gallery, when refurbishment works were undertaken there.

Who pays for the department building to be refurbished to cater for the museum would remain something to be nutted out - and it would be no surprise at all if this remains in the too hard basket in the short term with no money on the horizon.

However, of course, the university is on a deadline to get its $15.6 million accommodation works at Inveresk completed in time for the start of the 2016 academic year, as part of the federal government's National Rental Affordability Scheme.

In late March, it was also reported that Metro Cinemas was keen to start building works at Inveresk for its 1000-seat complex.

The end result for the university and council could certainly be a new lease of life for Inveresk, as well as a consolidation of council and state government facilities.