Accountability and Ratepayers' Contributions to Council Salaries

CLICK HERE FOR INFORMATION ON COUNCILLORS ALLOWANCES 

Hobart and Launceston aldermen receive $34,002 a year, the deputy mayor $55,962 and the mayor $119,009. Reportedly Launceston City Council general manager Robert Dobrzynski's salary range is ($290,000 to $310,000). In addition aldermen receive allowances including for their telephones.

Reportedly Launceston's rates are the highest in Tasmania and some commentators say they are the highest in Australia. Launceston Council has the highest operating budget in Tasmania and ratepayers deserve a high level of accountability.

Interestingly, Launceston City Council Annual General Meeting is to be held on first Monday in December at 6.30 pm but there has been no overt advertising for the event so far least of all on the council's website. One has to dig deep to find the information.

Reportedly the General Manager thinks the AGM is a waste of time. If being held to account at it is unwelcomed that might be why and in 2015 especially.

The current contact information for the Aldermen of the Launceston City Council gleaned from the LCC website is:

• Mayor Albert van Zetten – T 03 6323 3101 M 0413 671 926 F 03 6323 3125 E Mayor
• Deputy Mayor Rob Soward – M 0402 357 536  E Alderman Soward 
• Alderman Robin McKendrick – M 0419 873 413 E Alderman McKendrick
• Alderman Ted Sands – M 0438 540 395  E Alderman Sands
• Alderman Hugh McKenzie – M 0418 132 442  F 03 6337 3700  E Alderman McKenzie
• Alderman Jim Cox  – T 03 6344 2569 F 03 6344 6952  E Alderman Cox
• Alderman Danny Gibson – M 0407 096 597 E Alderman Gibson
• Alderman Janie Finlay – M  0419 343 163 E Alderman Finlay
• Alderman Darren Alexander– M 0400 591 265 E Alderman Alexander
• Alderman Karina Stojansek – M N/A E Alderman Stojansek
• Alderman Simon Wood – M 0408 341 279 E Alderman Wood
• Alderman Emma Williams – M 0417 076 371 E Alderman Williams

FOR MORE INFORMATION ON THE ALDERMEN CLICK HERE

If the Aldermen are so intent in giving ratepayer's resources to any institution or organisation they should be able to explain it to their constituency. Likewise, in the 21st C circumstances they should be be able to put their 'policy position' up on either the Council website or their own. 

Currently there has been a deathly silence from Aldermen articulating their rationale for handing over ratepayer assets to the University of Tasmania. Note that the Aldermen are well rewarded for their representation of ratepayers and it is reasonable that hear from them justifying their support or otherwise for a proposition.

If you have not seen anything of the like described here phone or email the aldermen seeking more information. Aldermen will never be accountable unless they are held accountable.

Launceston Council presents a very good case for change in Local Govt. and especially so for dramatic amalgamations.

CAN LOCAL GOVERNMENT BE DONE BETTER?

Posted on November 23, 2015 by The Constitution Unit

There has been growing interest in the idea of staging a ‘people’s’ constitutional convention in the UK over recent years, but little evidence for how one could work in practice. With this in mind a group of academics recently convened two pilot citizens’ assemblies in Sheffield and Southampton. The Unit’s own Alan Renwick, who was involved in running the Sheffield assembly, draws out eight lessons from two highly successful weekends.

Interest has been strong for over a year in the creation of a ‘people’s’ constitutional convention to examine some of the major questions of governance and democracy that face the UK today.  I have pushed the case myself, as have many other academics, politicians, and activists.

This debate has drawn so far mainly on examples from other countries.  Now, however, we have some home-grown evidence to learn from.  I am part of a group – including also academics from the Universities of Sheffield, Southampton, and Westminster and a team from the Electoral Reform Society, and funded by the Economic and Social Research Council – who recently convened two pilot citizens’ assemblies to test out how the model of a citizens’ assembly works in the UK. .................. Click here to read the full article

CONTENTS

1. Regular citizens are capable of high-quality deliberation. 
2. Quality reflection takes time. 
3.  Small-group discussion is where most of the deepest thinking happens. 
4.  Downtime is essential too. 
5.  Good table facilitators are key. 
6.  Organisers need to be nimble. 
7. Recruitment must be handled with care. 
8. Assembly members deserve pampering. 

•  About the author Dr Alan Renwick is the Deputy Director of The Constitution Unit and was Assembly North’s Academic Director. Share this: TwitterFacebook34RedditEmail Related Designing a Constitutional Convention for the UK: Getting the details right really matters In "Devolution" Imagining a constitutional convention for the UK In "Events" Considering a constitutional convention for Scotland In "Scottish Independence" This entry was posted in Devolution, Other and tagged Alan Renwick, citizens' assembly, constitutional convention, public engagement, Sheffield. Bookmark the permalink. Post navigation← Votes at 16: What effect would it have on the EU referendum?Northern Ireland’s ‘Fresh Start’ agreement will bring short term stability but does not itself resolve the underlying problems → One thought on “Do citizens’ assemblies work in practice? Eight lessons from a pilot” 

November 23, 2015 

Peter Bryant says: Getting the commitment from citizens for such processes is very difficult. Why would it not be? Why would we expect citizens, who are understandably very cynical of our politicians, to want to take part in such initiatives? My experience of having run over twenty Citizens Juries over the past ten years is that (like all of us) people need incentives. Often these incentives are to get people through the door. We are currently running the Wirral Alcohol Inquiry and are recruiting for 20 residents to attend nine evening sessions. Last Thursday as we walked the streets in the rain to randomly recruit people (supplementing the letter drop) the thing that grabbed peoples attention the most was the offer of a £20 voucher for each session that they attend. Once through the door they realise there are many many more incentives on offer, making new friends, feeling more part of the community, feeling they can make a difference, something to do etc. time and time again some of the participants have said to us ‘actually I’ve decided I don’t want the voucher please use it to help make sure the recommendations become a reality’. The danger of not offering such incentives (and child care etc) is that such processes become dominated by the 60+ white middle classes who then find it difficult to not engage in othering when discussing complex social issues. 

 Enter your comment below

EQUITY, MONEY, AIRPORTS, WATER AND RATEPAYERS

NOTE: HILIGHTED TEXT DENOTES LINKS TO WEBSITES

The City of Launceston (CoL) (rather its ratepayers) owns a share in Launceston Airport (LA) and CoL GM Robert Dobrzynski on the Board of Launceston Airport. 

• Launceston Airport refuses to pay rates bill to Northern Midlands Council (NMC). 

• CoL (Launceston ratepayers) and all other Municipalities (And their ratepayers) including NMC owns TasWater and NMC Mayor is appointed chief representative of TasWater’s Owners’ Council. 

• CoL refuses to pay bill for Launceston’s combined sewer/stormwater system. 

• CoL 's dividend on CoL investment in LA probably exceeds the sum owed to NMC.  

• CoL is probably the largest 'shareholder' in TasWater but its dividend along with other 'shareholder Municipalities' is being held up and eyed off by TasWater to help fund its major capital works budget. 

• Who loses? Ratepayers of course whilst the $$$$$ remain locked up in the respective bank accounts. 

• Who wins? Legal advisers, Investment Fund Managers, staff of LA and TasWater? 

What is actually cataloged above is a situation blighted by the perception of inequity and a situation ripe for the formation of a Citizen's Panel or Citizen's Jury advocated by the newDEMOCRACY Foundation ... There is precedence, Melbourne City Council has used a Citizen's Jury to assess its budget and the are multiple examples other than this!

CLICK ON AN IMAGE TO ENLARGE

CLICK HERE TO ACCES THIS STORY

Footnote: And so goes the story in the south with Hobart Airport and Clarence Council

IS LAUNCESTON AIRPORT A LIFTER OR A LEANER?

CLICK HERE TO GO TO THE ABC STORY

CLICK HERE TO GO TO THE EXAMINER'S STORY

The ABC says "The Federal Government has been asked to intervene in a long-running dispute between Launceston Airport and Northern Midlands Council over unpaid rates. 

The airport lies in Evandale, which falls within the council's district, but sits on Commonwealth-owned land. 

Mayor David Downie said the airport had racked up more than $1 million of debt in unpaid rates. 

"They're exploiting a loophole ... the land that the airport is on is owned by the Commonwealth Government and we don't have any enforcement powers as we do over all over ratepayers," he said. 

"The only way that we can extract rates from the airport is under the lease agreement that they have with the Commonwealth." ... CLICK HERE TO READ THE WHOLE STORY

Local government needs to do more than whinge about its "leaner" constituents, it needs to convert them into "lifters". On the evidence, Launceston Airport looks like its a proverbial "lead-swinger" of the very worst kind.  On the other hand, does the operation have a point?

More and more this is all starting to look rather political. But have the politicians, Federal, State or Local, got the gumption to front up to the issue or even have the mechanisms to hand to resolve it?

It is hard to see how 'an airport operation's supplementary businesses' might have a case for special consideration .... but they might. However, do they? It is possible that the Launceston Airport is meeting its 'civic obligations' but is it? If it is, who decides? How is it decided?

There is something of the old old story to do with the 'civic obligations' of a whole raft of 'corporate citizens' like charities, churches, schools, universities, hospitals, utilities plus quite possibly many other organisations/operations that would contest their 'civic similarities and eligabilities'.

Now it seems that privatised airports, and their supplementary enterprises, are among those claiming special consideration. Collectively, airports, etc. that claim 'charity' and/or 'utility' status, in many cases their 'status' is becoming increasingly blurred, and in some instances in clearly contestable ways.

There is some confusing blurring to be contended with when local government itself, and thus its ratepayers, is a shareholder in a privatised enterprises/utilities such airports. Here the City of Launceston, through some quirk of fate, is a Launceston Airport  shareholder albeit that the airport is outside its municipal boundaries.

Anecdotally,  the City of Launceston is represented on the airport's board by its General Manager Robert Dobrzynski. By extension, this poses several questions in this airport's case that should be self evident.

One question being, are the ratepayers of Launceston benefiting, via their dividends, at the expense of North Midlands' ratepayers? If North Midlands' ratepayers argue that they are carrying, and paying for, Launceston Airport's non-contribution to its civic obligation ... are they?

The Examiner tells us that the board Robert Dobrzynski serves on, according to North Midland's Mayor Cr Downie, at the latest rate evaluation was set at $450,000 but the airport chose to pay just $152,000.

There is one thing that's almost certain, that is by itself, standing on the road near the airport with placards is not likely to resolve the big questions emerging here. That is, unless the politicians stand aside and find an independent and arm's length mechanism for determining 'accountability'.

The key questions here are to do with the institutions'/operations' ability to deem their own obligations/liabilities, or otherwise, and then there is the issue of the equity in doing so. Somewhat contentiously Launceston Airport is calling its payment, quoted in in Federal parliament, "an ex gratia payment" .... a sum of money paid when there is no obligation or liability to pay it.

The Launceston Airport's obligation to pay rates, and on a value that other corporate entities must accept, is at the heart of this stoush in the Northern Midlands Council.

Alongside, this there are the issues of 'social licence' and by extension the evaluation of the 'social and cultural dividends' delivered. Are there any? What are they? Are they adequate?

Not too far from these arguments is the issue of the status and equity of rates being seen as, levied as, a 'wealth tax' and the 'capacity to pay' against 'willingness to pay'. There is the potential here for this issue to fester away unproductively if it is not adequately dealt with.

There may well be a ready made mechanism for bringing this issue to a speedier end than the political class might have either the will to intervene or the capacity to do.

The mechanism is, the Citizen's Panel or Citizen's Jury advocated by the newDEMOCRACY Foundation – LINK [1] LINK [2] LINK [3] .

While a Citizen Panel/Jury 'finding' might not be 'legally binding', simply having the finding in this case would be a significant step towards understanding accountability, equity and justness.These are the very things North Midlands Council are looking for and are struggling with!

Click on the image to enlarge

Launceston's Ratepayers cop it yet again

CLICK HERE TO GO TO THE EXAMINER STORY

"CEMENT mixing company Boral will be relocated from its North Bank home on November 26, 2016. 

The $8.5 million Launceston City Council-funded relocation will see the site moved about 400 metres to Gleadow Street, near Bunnings, as part of a flood levee compulsory acquisition. 

Launceston City Council general manager Robert Dobrzynski said on Monday that the November date was set, and the council was now working with the company through the complex Land Acquisition Act.  ..... Click here to go to the story"

So Launceston ratepayer cop it yet again and you have to ask, did ratepayers really NEED to payout $8.5 M for Boral to move just across the road.

GM Dobrzynski says that Council is "only a participant and did not control the process [and it] had a healthy working relationship with Boral". 

Well that's nice for everyone EXCEPT Launceston's hapless ratepayers, all of whom do not have unlimited funds available to foot such bills.

While ratepayers might understand the underlying flood mitigation process, Launceston Council seems totally unable to plan its civic works projects in a way that is affordable in the long term for ratepayers.

 GM Dobrzynski says that Council is "not aiming for a 'quick fix', but rather the best outcome". 

Yes, but for whom? We might well ask just how we got here and with such a heavy fiscal burden spread across the municipality. 

Apparently the Launceston Flood Authority, and its chairman Alan Birchmore, are as disconnected from any concern for ratepayers capacity to pay.

Launceston has a long record of big spending in the short term and in ways that visits long term costs on ratepayers. This is why the city's current rates are way above the odds!

This kind of behaviour presents a very good case for amalgamation and the obliteration of the apparently inept Councils like Launceston's – both the aldermen and their functionaries.

It is no wonder that cash strapped ratepayers get just a little titchy when Council gives away public land for FREE and at the same time is so fiscally delinquent when it comes to planning and taking ratepayers' capacity to pay into account.

Bring on the amalgamations so that Launceston's ratepayers at least can escape the endlessness of the Council dipping into their pockets and savings because Council continues to demonstrate fiscal recklessness.

T. Vale

LETTER: More Mixed Messages From Launceston Town Hall

CLICK HERE TO GO TO EXAMINER STORY

Hello ratepayers all,

Interesting, very interesting indeed, Mr Dobrzynski finally admits that the Inveresk site is NOT in the CBD because the free Tiger Bus could become an important transportational link between the CBD and Inveresk. 

OH... I thought University was relocating to the CBD, did I get that wrong?? 

Dumb me, I’m only a dumb ratepayer......!! 

He says (when) the bus.... could be further used to battle traffic congestion...(when) the city becomes inundated with vehicle movements attached to any future inner city campus development ... 

Oh... so, there will be traffic congestion, and I thought the Mayor said these students would be riding bicycles....Dumb me again ...!! 

Mr Dobrzynski’s solution is to expand the free bus service, already costing ratepayers $230,000 [net operating budget – does that mean $230,000 loss?] and what will it cost the ratepayers to service UTAS with a free bus service for whatever schedule is required, probably not only between the CBD and Inveresk but also Inveresk to Mowbray where a large number of students will continue to live? 

Students interact with universities at all times of the day and into the evening. It is not just a simple service. 

• Why is local government providing free bus services to universities? 
• The University chooses to locate its facilities in an area where students will need transport, so why doesn’t the university supply the busses? 
• Does this occur anywhere else at the expense of ratepayers?

Your truly

Ms. D Bauers

Mowbray

MIXED & MIXED UP MESSAGES OUT OF HOBART & LAUNCESTON COUNCILS

CLICK ON AN IMAGE TO ENLARGE

CLICK HERE TO GO TO THE STORY

Hobart City Council seems to have lost its way, or is well along the path to loosing it. The Salamanca Market is iconic and an important component of 'cultural status' is the exchange of ideas along with the sale of goods. Its a great site to engage with 'the community'!

Council  – whether this is the functionaries or the aldermen is uncertain – taking on 'The Greens' is seemingly a trifle stupid to say the least. In the past this very same Council, albeit with different players, took on Rodney Croome et al and look at where that got them and indeed Rodney.

It's now Rodney Croome AM and he is now an Australian LGBT rights activist and academic. Croome currently serves as the spokesperson for the Tasmanian Gay and Lesbian Rights Group, National Convenor of Australian Marriage Equality and one of the founders of the Australian Coalition for Equality (ACE).

Hobart Council needs to be careful about what they wish for an not waste ratepayers' money in counterproductive, costly and pointless litigation. Being involved in an anti-discrimination action is not a good look! 

Indeed it makes the National News and the cost of that relative to the city's economy is incalculable. 

Talking about the BAD LOOKS STAKES Hobart's so-called Christmas Tree is now a national joke and especially so on Social Media. The whole debacle is an example of what happens when you assume the 'moral high ground' and do-it-to your community rather than do-it-with your people.

Funny thing, Christmas trees can be a litmus test of a kind and comparing and contrasting say Hobart and Launceston in the relevance stakes Christmas trees tells us a lot about how Councils regard their constituents more generally. It also has something to say about community engagement..

CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO ENLARGE

CLICK HERE TO GO TO THIS CHRISTMAS TREE STORY

“PRETTY” and “cool” were some of the words children used to describe Hobart City Council’s art Christmas tree in Salamanca Square last night. 

 But as the lights came on, not everyone was happy with the $35,000 metal tree. ... “It just doesn’t do anything for me. I think it’s a waste of money and I think there are a lot of better things to use money for,” Kingston’s Melanie Sadler said. Her friend Hannah McCullagh said the tree did not make her feel very festive."

Launceston's Christmas tree for instance, well it clings to tradition with every fibre even if its in plastic and evocative of Christmas elsewhere and London or the Northern Hemisphere generally for goodness sake. And the Christmas Parade will be focusing on "all things Disney" yet another flight to elsewhere and ultimate irrelevance in marketing.

 Just check out Launceston's Christmas spin on FACEBOOK:  

https://www.facebook.com/Christmas-in-the-City-1500152640263928/

Hobart Council not standing in the way of urban beekeeping

CLICK HERE TO GO TO SOURCE

"Bees are essential to pollination, food security, urban agriculture and local honey production and Beekeeping is growing in popularity.

To ensure best practices are maintained to encourage bees to flourish in numbers and to prevent potential negative impacts on people, property, domestic animals and native flora and fauna, it is important that guidelines are available. It is also important that beekeepers are aware of potential issues that can affect bees and the nuisances they can cause to neighbours.

The Southern Beekeepers Association Inc. has produced a Code of Practice for Urban Beekeeping in Tasmania, which the Council has recently endorsed and we are now seeking to amend the Heath and Environmental Services By-law (the principal By-law) to accommodate some of the key issues identified in this code........"

It is good to see that a council can bring itself to consider issues such as this. NOW let's see if real progress can be made on amalgamation, resource recovery or even equitable rates. 

We'll just have to watch and wait to see if the dog can stop its tail wagging it?????

T. Vale

THE DEAD PARROT POOL STORY

Who remembers the MONTY PYTHON DEAD PARROT SKETCH if not CLICK HERE

When it comes to dead parrots the Swift Parrot Story is far from funny

CLICK HERE TO GO TO THIS STORY IN THE EXAMINER

Doreen Bowen Of course the Launceston Council was warned about cutting down the Blue Gums on Windmill Hill, but did they listen? Now the LCC action looks like it has contributed to the very real extinction of the parrot !! Perhaps a memorial plaque to the demise of the swift parrot ought to be erected at the pool to add to the rest of the memorials on the hill.

Vale swift parrot, bonjour white elephant.....!

NOT FUNNY JAN!

Swift parrot populations are not only under threat by natural factors, bushfires and breeding issues. 

The Examiner readers are reminded how several swift parrot carcasses were reported when discovered around the perimeter of the glass walling of the Launceston Aquatic Centre, having flown into the glass because of a lack of care from Launceston City Council's designers who failed to recognize and cater for the risks to the then population of parrots surrounding the Reserve on Windmill Hill. None have been discovered recently, maybe due to the belated installation of a film on the glass, but probably more likely due to extinction......by human inaction, and important trees being removed from this area and urban habitat. Another casualty of this ratepayer's loss centre. 

Lionel Morrell     President, Tasmanian Ratepayers Association Inc.

CITIZEN'S PETITION IN THE EXAMINER TODAY

CLICK ON AN IMAGE TO ENLARGE

You may wish to enlarge your photocopies

WHEN A COUNCIL GETS IT WRONG .... and with ratepayers' money

CLIK ON THE IMAGE TO ENLARGE

Hobart Alderman Marti Zucco laments controversial tree design change 

BLAIR RICHARDS STATE POLITICAL REPORTER MERCURY NOVEMBER 23, 2015 12:00AM

A HOBART Alderman has distanced himself from Hobart’s controversial avant-garde Christmas tree and questioned how the design was approved.

Alderman Marti Zucco, who was absent from the council meeting where the tree was approved, said Hobart had ended up with a tree nothing like the original design.

“I am totally gobsmacked how the Council has ended up being the ridicule of the country and its dignity tarnished,” Ald Zucco said.

Ald Zucco was overseas when the council decided to proceed with the tree.

However, he said he understood the first tree design shown to the council was originally costed at $30,000, before being revised up to $70,000 after being properly costed.

Ald Zucco said a new design was then created and built at a cost of $35,000, without the approval of the full council.

“In the interests of transparency we need to know why these matters occurred and why the full Council was not given the final approval of what has been constructed. As a Council we may have decided to go in another direction. In both the type of tree to be installed and the end cost, if the design had been presented to Council again,” he said.

Ald Hickey blasted Ald Zucco for being publicly critical of the tree after having no involvement in the design process.

“If he’s not going to be there he can still contribute by sending emails to other aldermen, which he didn’t do,” she said. ..... “The kids have decorated the tree with love and hope and it’s the community tree we always wanted it to be,” she said.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE FULL STORY IN THE MERCURY

MORE: HCC REVAMPS CHRISTMAS CHEER MORE: LORD MAYOR DEFENDS CHRISTMAS TREE MORE: FESTIVE LOOK, NO ARTY TREE MORE: PUBLIC REMAINS UNCERTAIN ABOUT ARTY CHRISTMAS TREE

Crowd Funding Update Monday Morning

Thank you one and all!!

CLICK ON IMAGE TO ENLARGE

LAUNCESTON CONSIDERS HOW IT WILL SET RATES

FROM THE EXAMINER
" Flexible rate proposal for Launceston

By JAMES BRA Nov. 20, 2015, 10:03 p.m.

"A NEW rating proposal has hit Launceston City Council's agenda for Monday's general meeting.

The proposal, forwarded by Alderman Ted Sands, would see the council explore the mapping of a flexible differential rating structure and adoption of an average area rate for residential properties.

The motion would see council general manager Robert Dobrzynski prepare a resolution for 2016-17 financial year to allow for a differential rate across various use of land and vacant land to allow varying rates within each sector" ... CLICK HERE TO READ THIS ARTICLE

 EDITORIAL OPINION: If the aldermen approve this move towards a new rating model and realistically identify a fixed or average rate component of the general rate this would represent a major shift in Launceston's rating system.

However, the General Manager and the Corporate Services Director seem to be saying that ratepayers need to be careful about what they wish for. The operational side of Council does not seem to be all that interested in the establishment of anything that disrupts "the way things are."

Seemingly, the notion that anything being discussed here is anything at all like a "flat rate" is a bit mischievous. In fact it would be better described as a 'variable flat rat' or a flat rate with discriminatory and discretionary variations. A Claytons Flat Rate even!

In line with true accountability, rate notices should identify the services, and their relative cost translated as a levy, that ratepayers are paying for.

For instance, for true accountability 21st Century style there needs to be levies identified for:

• Council Corporate Services and Administration Levy;
• Public Works Levy (Capital);
• Infrastructure Maintenance Levy;
• Public Heath Services Levy;
• Waste Management (Resource Recovery) Levy;
• Recreational Services Levy
• Recreational Facilities Levy – York Park and L'ton Aquatic;
• Cultural Development and Cultural Services Levy;
• Cultural Facilities Levy – QVMAG and Princess Theatre;
• Community Development and Events Grants Levy; and
• Possibly other micro levies calculated evenly across all rateable properties.

This would better inform ratepayers in regard to how their rates arrived at and are being expended.

Currently the technology exists that would enable and allow residents and ratepayers to monitor their Council's budget progress and fiscal management at any moment in time – say as it stood at the end of any week.

Interestingly, it seems that this kind of accountability is not currently available within the operation if what many 'operatives' report is to be taken seriously. 

One would hope that 'management' would have, and would need to have, this information at their finger tips right now but it seems not.

Therefore any shift in fiscal management at the council would need to start with a truly INDEPENDENT AUDIT to establish a baseline to work from.

The aldermen, if they are serious about the equitability of the 'rating system', and interested in achieving functional accountability, should not see any impediment in taking this kind of course to achieve true accountability and equitability.

Elsewhere in Australia Local Govt. has been initiating CITIZENS PANELS or JURIES in an effort to govern and budget better via models developed and researched by the newDEMOCRACY Foundation.

Launceston council might well go down this track instead of say appointing an expensive outside consultant and as they say "lending them our watch and asking them to tell us the time".

Melbourne City Council has subjected its budget to such a jury as have local governments elsewhere ... SEE http://democracy21tasmaina.blogspot.com.au/

Tandra Vale 22-11-15

The outcome is reported on here  ... Click Here

MEDIA RELEASE: Basil Fitch Alerts Ratepayers & Residents

Spokesman for the Concerned Citizens Group, former Ald. Basil Fitch, said the launch of the petition against LCC's 'in principle' decision to give to UTas land known as 'Willis Street Car Park' and 'Old Velodrome' free, now gives Launceston's ratepayers and residents an opportunity to call a public meeting to fully discuss this matter.

Under Section 57 Local Government Act a petition must carry at least 1,000 signatures from ratepayers and residents to be effective.

Today former Ald. Basil Fitch, warned "if LCC are allowed to give this land worth millions $$'s away, it will set an awful precedent for the future."

 He also  "urged all ratepayers and residents to consider the petition very carefully."

"All our assets should be sold, not given away, thereby reducing rates by the proceeds of sale" Basil Fitch said.

For further information CLICK HERE

Mayor van Zetten and the Citizen's Petition

Please take the opportunity to listen to the Mayor van Zetten on the radio in regard to the petition.

"Council slams ratepayers petition against UTAS relocation 

CLICK HERE TO LISTEN ONLINE: http://www.tasmaniatalks.com.au/latest-news/223-council-slams-ratepayers-petition-against-utas-relocation

CLICK HERE: http://launcestonpetitions.blogspot.com.au/