OPEN LETTER TO RATEPAYERS: LCC 2014 ELECTIONS

To Launceston Ratepayers,

I have been asked for advice from the Tasmanian Ratepayers Association concerning recommendations for voting in the Launceston City Council elections. The Association has not endorsed any candidates, but offers this advice concerning what we believe you should consider in casting your vote, albeit without any liability to myself or to the Association.

The mood that I have assessed from a broad section of the community and confirmed by the meeting last Monday night  at Heather Hall in Newstead, was for change.

I believe this is because of a number of factors where there is dis-satisfaction with the present councillors,

• some of whom have simply been their too long and can no longer credibly argue for change or to promote fresh ideas;
•  who have a lack of regard for the financial welfare of ratepayers who are doing it tough, and not just those ratepayers at the lower socio-economic scale;
• who show continuing lack of action to change the rating system to a fairer, more equitable basis that levies standard charges for basic services before applying a smaller factor for perceived wealth and ability to pay;
• who have allowed the Annual Budget to curve ever-upwards at an unprecedented rate, and now placing forward budgets into deficit for probably another 6 years; 

We presently have weak governance and strong management. Our Aldermen find it much easier to go along with what is put before them by management, and there is little initiative or ability to say no. What is required are fresh aldermen who have not been conditioned to the ailing Launceston way of doing things, and aldermen who are not afraid to buck the system because they are dependent on the money and lifestyle that being an alderman brings to them. Sad but true, that virtually all present aldermen are in their positions for what wealth it gives them, and without it they would suffer a significant lifestyle change.

There is a cargo cult mentality around the council table, where eyes are directed towards grants and handouts from State and Federal governments instead of firstly looking at making council’s own operational and capital budgets more efficient and to return revenue savings to budget savings. Commonly particular operational budget overruns are funded by removing subsequent projects from the program altogether so as to reallocate their funding allowances with such projects moved into the next year’s budget period.

The ratepayer’s pockets are not bottomless, and already ratepayers complain of paying the highest rates in the country with Launceston rates continuing to rise each year at a rate above Average Weekly Earnings (AWE). Rates collection are formally acknowledged as a form of taxation, a wealth tax in fact, with some paying much more than others based on perceived ability to pay based on the value of the premises rated, not its income ability.

There are few skill sets around the table at present that could ever be applied to corporate governance of a $100m+ enterprise, much of which is allocated to maintaining inefficient service delivery and subsidising inefficient and unsustainable business models and business operations. The majority of aldermen have little or no understanding of what it is required to govern the corporation. Distractions thrown up by management can camouflage the reality of operational deficiencies, and to the outside observer, there is virtually no attempt made to question staff about what is being done within cost centres to effect operational efficiencies. Strategic risk assessment principles are likely to be a foreign language to most councillors.

New and existing candidates without corporate governance experience or credentials argue their role is to represent the ordinary person/ratepayer and bring a sense of “community” to the council table. 

There is little room for community benevolence in a local government enterprise such as Launceston City Council, particularly when there is so little wealth equity within the nature of local government operations. Of the 8 candidates re-standing, read what they are saying to you in their formal statements and ponder whether they have exhibited those views beforehand during their previous or many terms in office, and if they are admitting to new and fresh views, then why are they only now being revealed at election time.

Experience in community interaction can be a factor, but experience in governance positions is more useful. Unfortunately, few candidates whether re-standing or new, can claim a governance record.

Thoroughly read the information brochure provided and ensure that you understand how to lodge a valid vote. And so to the topic of selection of the best candidates. There are 25 candidates seeking election to 12 positions for a period of 4 years, one of whom aspires to be mayor (4 candidates) and another deputy mayor (5 candidates).

The strongest vote that may be cast is to limit the number of votes to the minimum number of candidates i.e. vote for only 12 councillors, 1 mayor and 1 deputy mayor.

In selecting your 12 candidates, read all available material on each candidate which may be found within the voting package, candidates brochures, on the LAUNCESTONaccountability BLOG [Click Here] and in the press. 

If in doubt, contact the candidates and ask them about the issues that matter to you and of their experience and skills/qualifications. It is essential that candidates be good communicators, be literate and willing to talk with you. Discount a candidate that is not prepared to communicate with you.

There is no imperative to vote immediately, so TAKE YOUR TIME and think about your vote over the next few days. Popular candidates are not necessarily the best candidates, and there is the question of gender representation, which in the case of mayor and deputy mayor is all male.

So in conclusion, think carefully and communicate with those candidates at least those who you are considering giving your 1-12 vote, and for mayor and deputy mayor.

Regards,

Lionel Morrell

 President

TASMANIAN RATEPAYERS ASSOCIATION INC.