RE: QVMAG Collections Policy

Mayor, General Manager & Aldermen,

Firstly, I wish to thank Council for the letter I received yesterday from the Mayor which advised me that Council is indeed reviewing its position relative to the QVMAG’s Collection Policy and by extension policy determination more generally it seems. After all this time that is welcomed news.

The important concept that it appears is being embraced is the distinction between the roles of governance and management in relation to the QVMAG, policy development, policy implementation and accountability. This is an important incremental step forward towards greater accountability.
 
The QVMAG’s credibility as an institution depends in no small way upon it being seen to be embracing ‘best practice’, and accountability, in this way.
 
Like justice, what is currently understood to be best practice not only must be practiced, it must be seen as being so. In order to win the levels of support the institution needs from the community, funding agencies, donors, sponsors, et al in a 21st C context this is an imperative. At least its clear to me that this is so from the vantage point that I watch from.
 
Given the wider community’s investments in the QVMAG itself as an institution, its collections and the diversity of ideas evolving within them, engaging the community enables three important things:

1. The marketing of the ideas, stories and values that Launceston (Tamar Esk) people celebrate and hold in high regard;
2. The proactive exploitation of, and the utilisation of, the institution as a community cultural enterprise; and
3. The generation of new and wider understandings within the community in a 21st C way.
   

Actually achieving these things is non trivial and it will no doubt involve reimagining the collections’ purpose, the objectives that flow from that, the rationales that reinforce the reimagining and the 21st C strategies to available deliver on potential.
 
I look forward with considerable interest to the unfolding outcomes that appear to be before us.

Regards,

Ray

Ray Norman | <zingHOUSEunlimited> | PH: 03-6334 2176 | EMAIL 1: raynorman@eftel.net.au
40 Delamere Crescent Trevallyn TAS. 7250 WEBsite: http:// www.raynorman7250.blogspot.com

“A body of men holding themselves accountable to nobody ought not to be trusted by anybody.” — Thomas Paine

Message
From: Mayor <Mayor@launceston.tas.gov.au>
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 05:20:49 +0000
To: "Ray Norman (raynorman@eftel.net.au)" <raynorman@eftel.net.au>
Subject: QVMAG Collections Policy

Hi Ray
 
Attached letter in response to your email dated 22 May 2015.
 
Kind regards
 
Albert van Zetten I Mayor I City of Launceston
T 03 6323 3101 I www.launceston.tas.gov.au <http://www.launceston.tas.gov.au/>
 <https://twitter.com/LtonCityCouncil>  <http://www.youtube.com/user/LauncestonCtyCouncil>  <http://www.launceston.tas.gov.au>  <http://yourvoiceyourlaunceston.com.au/>

Please consider the environment before printing this, or any other e-mail or document.
________________________________________
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER

Information in this transmission is intended only for the person(s) to whom it is addressed and may contain privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying or dissemination of the information is unauthorised and you should delete/destroy all copies and notify the sender. No liability is accepted for any unauthorised use of the information contained in this transmission.

This disclaimer has been automatically added.
|||||||||||||||||

Message
From: Ray Norman <raynorman@eftel.net.au>
Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 10:39:51 +1000
To: Albert van Zetten <mayor@launceston.tas.gov.au>
Cc: Hugh Mckenzie <hughmckenzie7250@gmail.com>, Richard Mulvaney <Richard.Mulvaney@launceston.tas.gov.au>
Subject: AGAIN: LETTER TO MAYOR, GENERAL MANAGER & COUNCIL: QVMAG Collection Security

Dear Albert,

I have not received an acknowledgement from you that you have received my letter/email below nor advice that you were dealing with the matters raised. I have received an email from the GM’s PA saying that the GM would respond to me in due course.

However, the issues I raise go to governance and it would be inappropriate for management to be making judgments, and/or running a commentary, on management’s performance and management’s relevant accountability.

I put it to you that the questions arising from my email that you and Aldermen, as Governors/Trustees of the QVMAG, need to consider very carefully are:

1. Are you convinced that and the QVMAG’s collections are secure?
2. Do you believe that the QVMAG’s collection policies and priorities meet 21st C ethical, cultural, scientific and/or research standards and aspirations?
3. If so upon what evidence? If not what actions are in place to ensure these standards are adhered to?
4. Are you, and is Council, as the QVMAG Collections Trustees, comfortable in the knowledge that all works/objects in the collections that are on loan outside the QVMAG are secure, suitably stored and in good condition?
5. If so upon what evidence? If not what actions are in place to ensure these standards are adhered to?
6. In regard to collection matters and current museology issues, upon what independent expert advice do you rely upon, and place your trust in, on behalf of your constituency?
   

Today’s Examiner carries a story  that goes to these issues in no small way – see http://www.examiner.com.au/story/3105914/museum-can-keep-war-pistol/?cs=95

Given the social, cultural, scientific and fiscal values invested in the QVMAG, and its collections, I look forward to receiving your early response on behalf of your fellow Governors/Trustees, and I do so with considerable interest.

Regards,

Ray
Ray Norman | <zingHOUSEunlimited> | PH: 03-6334 2176 | EMAIL 1: raynorman@eftel.net.au
 40 Delamere Crescent Trevallyn TAS. 7250 WEBsite: http:// www.raynorman7250.blogspot.com

“A body of men holding themselves accountable to nobody ought not to be trusted by anybody.” — Thomas Paine
 

Forwarded Message
From: Ray Norman <raynorman@eftel.net.au>
Date: Sun, 24 May 2015 11:23:25 +1000
To: Albert van Zetten <mayor@launceston.tas.gov.au>,
Robert Dobrzynski <Robert.Dobrzynski@launceston.tas.gov.au>,
LCC Records <records@launceston.tas.gov.au>
Cc: "Peter Gutwein [Minister for Local Government]" <peter.gutwein@dpac.tas.gov.au>,
"Vanessa Goodwin [Minister for the Arts]" <vanessa.goodwin@parliament.tas.gov.au>,
 Phillip Hoysted <lgd@dpac.tas.gov.au>, Richard Mulvaney <Richard.Mulvaney@launceston.tas.gov.au>,
"Katrena Stephenson [LGAT]" <katrena.stephenson@lgat.tas.gov.au>, LGAT President <mayorjarvis@dorset.tas.gov.au>
Subject: LETTER TO MAYOR, GENERAL MANAGER & COUNCIL: 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 http://tasratepayers.blogspot.com.au/p/city-of-launceston-reference-no.html) 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 ofless 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 value’ and thus the appropriateness of deaccession when advising council – the 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

PS: See http://tasratepayers.blogspot.com.au/2015/05/letter-to-lcc-aldermen-qvmag-collection.html for additional context
Ray Norman
 <zingHOUSEunlimited>
The lifestyle design enterprise and research network

PH: 03-6334 2176
EMAIL 1: raynorman@eftel.net.au
EMAIL 2: ray@7250.net
40 Delamere Crescent Trevallyn TAS. 7250
WEBsite: http://www.raynorman7250.blogspot.com

NOTICE: this message, and any attachments, may contain privileged and confidential information intended for
the exclusive use of the addressee named above. If you are not the intended recipient of this message you must not
disseminate, copy or take any action in relation to the message. If you have received this message in error,
please immediately notify the sender at the above address and delete all copies of the message
The information in this email is absolutely confidential and commercial-in-confidence
 protocols apply to that information that may have a commercial application.

Furthermore, the intellectual property rights of the author(s) apply in accord with Australian Copyright and Moral Rights Laws.

------ End

Letter From the Mayor – Collection Policy

CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO ENLARGE

Re: PLACEscaping Launceston

Hello Albert,

Thank you for your response and I’m sorry that I missed your assistant’s response. Because I run an office-of-one I search my incoming mail by name not subject and currently there is quite a bit in my Inbox. I will need to change that practice!

The Peer Reviewed Report
Thank you for the copy of the report albeit that it does not seem to be anything that I’m familiar with in regard to “peer reviewing”. Indeed on my immediate reading of it there are a series of questions arising and I’m wondering why Council didn’t pose some of them. On the face of it, it is a rather cursory assessment of the principle report and the recommendation/s  seem to be pre-conceived.

Indeed, on first reading only, its rigor and veracity as a  “peer review” I suggest is open to challenged. Now that it is publicly available I suspect such a challenge may well be mounted in time even if the horse has bolted.

Floods Levy Report/Advice
I was making no assumption that either you, or indeed any of the Aldermen, had the kind of hydraulics(?) or engineering expertise relative to what this report would be based upon. For precisely that reason Section 65 of the Act is there to ensure the you and Council have access to the kind expert advice needed in order to make appropriate decisions. It is fact that advice that I am seeking. That is, the advice upon which decisions were made and that you and Council relied upon.

If you and Aldermen do not have access to such information/advice – and/or did not at the time – on what basis were the decisions made? If the Flood Authority is as you say “best placed” to provide such advice why is it the you and Council do not – or did not –  have access to it? The notion that you have previously proffered, that council meetings are indeed public consultations, in this context, again points to schisms in understandings that are concerning.

My concern here is absolutely to do with the impact consultation and decision making processes have on  ‘placemaking & placescaping’ – from my perspective the primarily function of Council (Local Govt.). If you have another view of Council’s ‘primary purpose’ could you please inform me of it so as I can reconcile and accommodate our possibly contrary viewpoints.

Regards,

Ray

Ray Norman
<zingHOUSEunlimited>
The lifestyle design enterprise and research network

PH: 03-6334 2176
EMAIL 1: raynorman@eftel.net.au
40 Delamere Crescent Trevallyn TAS. 7250
WEBsite: http://www.raynorman7250.blogspot.com

Ray Norman: Secretary, Steering Committee
WEBsite: http://tamarinstitute.blogspot.com/

Ray Norman: Secretary, PONRABBEL Steering Committee
WEBsite: http://ponrabbel.blogspot.com.au/
•
“A body of men holding themselves accountable to nobody ought not to be trusted by anybody.” — Thomas Paine
For more information:
PONRABBEL, the BLOG/Journal ... http://www.ponrabbel.blogspot.com.au/
Notes on The PONRABBEL ... http://www.ponrabbel.blogspot.com.au/p/the-ponrabbel-image-courtesy-of-low.html
PONRABBEL Strategic Plan ... http://www.ponrabbel.blogspot.com.au/p/ponrabbel-strategic-plan-friday-7.html
Tamar Institute Strategic Plan ... http://www.tamarinstitute.blogspot.com.au/
Greg Parkinson, Steering Committee Convenor .... eMAIL GREG@7250.net
Ray Norman, Steering Committee Secretary ... eMAIL ponrabbel@7250.net

On 9/12/14 4:54 PM, "Mayor" <Mayor@launceston.tas.gov.au> wrote:

Hi Ray
 
Thanks for your follow up email.  Your original note was acknowledged by my assistant on my behalf (as shown below). I have followed up your request and confirm that I'm not able to provide any information/advice on the decisions around the flood levee - this is well outside my area of expertise, and I do not have access to the reports/analysis that led to the decision to relocate the flood levee along Lindsay Street - and the subsequent 'isolation' of the Woolstore building.   Officers of the Launceston Flood Authority would be best placed to provide a response to this part of your query.  The peer review report is attached for your information.
 
Kind regards
 

Albert van Zetten I Mayor I Launceston City Council
T 03 6323 3101 I F 03 6323 3125 I www.launceston.tas.gov.au <http://www.launceston.tas.gov.au/>


-----Original Message-----
From: Debbie Pickett [mailto:Debbie.Pickett@launceston.tas.gov.au];
Sent: 28/11/2014 4:13:41 PM
To: Ray Norman [mailto:raynorman@eftel.net.au];
Subject: RE: PLACEscaping Launceston
Thanks Ray.  I will follow up and respond to your email below as soon as possible.
 
Kind regards
 

Debbie Pickett I Executive Assistant to the Mayor I Launceston City Council
T 03 6323 3101 I F 03 6323 3125 I www.launceston.tas.gov.au <http://www.launceston.tas.gov.au/>


From: Ray Norman [mailto:raynorman@eftel.net.au]
Sent: Friday, 28 November 2014 4:00 PM
To: Debbie Pickett; Mayor
Subject: Re: PLACEscaping Launceston

Dear Albert,

Thank you for this response and it is most helpful. The information provided does however give rise to two more queries;

1. Can you please provide us with a copy of the peer review report?
2. Can you please provide us with a copy of the report that recommends the demolition of the outer levy presumably prepared by or for the Flood Authority?
   

In order that the work we are doing is dealing with the best available information it would be much appreciated if this information can be provided at your earliest convenience.

Regards,

Ray

• Ray Norman| <zingHOUSEunlimited> |PH: 03-6334 2176 | EMAIL 1: raynorman@eftel.net.au
• 40 Delamere Crescent Trevallyn TAS. 7250| http://www.raynorman7250.blogspot.com
  

• Ray Norman: Secretary, Steering Committee
• WEBsite: http://tamarinstitute.blogspot.com/
  


• Ray Norman: Secretary, PONRABBEL Steering Committee
• WEBsite: http://ponrabbel.blogspot.com.au/
  
“A body of men holding themselves accountable to nobody ought not to be trusted by anybody.” — Thomas Paine

On 28/11/14 2:25 PM, "Debbie Pickett" <Debbie.Pickett@launceston.tas.gov.au> wrote:



Hi Ray
 
Thank you for your email below. I respond as follows to queries raised -
 
Heritage assessment of the Woolstore Building

Council has commissioned a number of reports into the Heritage Value of the Woolstore buildings, and the site area more generally.
 
The initial report (specifically looking at the Woolstore and Silo building) was the Assessment of Heritage Value: Town Point, Inveresk report. Subsequently a, peer review assessment was completed by Goddon Mackay & Logan Heritage Consultants. This report accompanied the Assessment of Heritage Value: Town Point, Inveresk report, at the Council meeting of 5th May 2012 (item 15.1). As per usual practice the Council Agenda and attachments were available for download from the Council website - and are still available now for download, or viewing on the publically accessible computers in our Customer Service Area.
 
Extract from Agenda Item 15.1 North Bank Woolstores:
 
The General Manager requested a peer review be undertaken of the HVA to validate the findings of the report, and also consider the broader contextual issues associated with the site - primarily the impact of the flood levee realignment, and the viability of maintaining and protecting the heritage values of the buildings in the long term, given the reduced flood protection as a result of the levee works.
 
Godden Mackay Logan Heritage Consultants were engaged to prepare the Peer Review Report. In summary, the report notes:
 
·        The HVS is thorough in its approach, although does not consider issues associated with the broader context of the site (including the impact of the flood levee realignment).

·        Does not wholly concur that the remaining structures satisfy the number of assessment criteria for Heritage Listing noted in the HVA, and that the significance of the remaining structures may only satisfy 2 of the 7 criteria.

·        Notes the low threshold for listing on the Tasmanian Heritage Register as only requiring one or more of the criteria to met for listing potential.

·        Notes that retention and adaptation would be an appropriate outcome however, the impediments to long term protection and re-use of the structures may not be viable.

·        Notes that the loss of the structures would be regrettable, but that other appropriate measures are available to achieve a satisfactory interpretation of the heritage values of the site as a valid alternative to building retention.


Given the lack of identified future uses for the part of the structure proposed for retention, it was recommended to Council to reconsider this element of the Masterplan proposal, and redirect the funding allocated to the Woolstore structure to the elements outlined in the recent report to Council.
 
Council's Consultation processes

Your Voice, Your Launceston was used as a consultation tool.  It is fair to say that the contemporary engagement tools used by other organisations seem to be of a similar nature these days.
 
I disagree with the assertion that taking a decision back to a Council meeting is not "Public" or "Consultative". In fact, the vast majority of Council decisions are made in this way. There seems to be the suggestion that the subsequent decision on the modification to the Masterplan was "snuck through" in some way. I disagree that this is the case.
 
The FAQ text below may also provide some additional valuable information -
 
Why did the Council approve the demolition of the wool shed?

The crown is the current owner of the site, not the Council, which means the Council cannot approve the demolition.
 
What we decided was that we would simply allow for its demolition in our North Bank master plan, a document which is guiding our $9m redevelopment of the North Bank recreation area.
 
The authority for the demolition of the wool shed will have to be granted by the crown to whoever applies to conduct that demolition.
 
The Council has already sought consent from the Crown to demolish one wool shed on behalf of the Launceston Flood Authority, which required its removal for flood levee upgrades. That demolition took place in 2013.
 
The decision Aldermen took about the future of the wool shed at the October Council meeting was:
 
(That) the Council determines to amend the current North Bank master plan to include:
 
1) Modifications to the proposed levee-top walkway and eastern connection to the Silos development site.
 
2) Removal of the wool store building, currently proposed for only partial retention, and replacement with new landscaping features to represent the former building footprint.
 
3) Construction of purpose-built shade and shelter structures in multiple locations across the site to replace the single consolidated undercover area proposed by the current master plan (by the partial retention of the wool store roof structure).
 
4) Introduction of new interpretation material recording the historical value of the development and industrial activities of the site area, including display of the industrial equipment (mechanical wool presses) salvaged from the wool store buildings.
 
5) Where possible, use of remaining viable salvaged material from the wool store building, in the construction of new elements of the North Bank site.

Why can't we just leave the wool shed as it is until a suitable use can be found for it?

Well, let's talk about the flood levee protection system that protects the City of Launceston. In recent years the Council has embarked on a $60m project to upgrade and rebuild the levee system that protects low-lying suburbs like Invermay from flood.
Currently the wool shed sits between two levees -- the original flood levee near the riverbank, and the newly upgraded levee on the southern side of Lindsay Street.
 
The Launceston Flood Authority will eventually remove parts of the older levee, closest to the river. Why? Because our new levees are designed to cope with certain situations. If, for example, we left the old levee in place and a flood occurred, the old levee may fail. This would lead to a sudden surge of water impacting on the new levee, which would be more likely to fail. In short, the new levees are designed to handle a slowly rising level of water, not a sudden crashing inundation.
 
What this means is that the wool shed has no system of flood protection, and in fact will be more likely to flood and sustain damage in future.

What was the public consultation process for the wool shed?

For more than two years, the City of Launceston has been working on plans for the revitalisation of the North Bank precinct, which includes the land on which the wool shed now sits.
 
In September 2013, Aldermen voted to release a draft North Bank master plan to the community for a six-week public consultation period. The majority of that public consultation took place on the Council's Your Voice Your Launceston community engagement website, which resulted in more than 3000 'page views' over the consultation period.
 
That draft plan proposed the demolition of the majority of the wool shed — four bays would be left at the southern end of the site, and half a bay at the northern end.
 
It should be noted that the proposal called for all walls and floors to be removed; only the roof structure was to remain.
 
During that public consultation process, there were no material proposals for potential future uses of the wool shed, either in its entirety or assuming parts of the building were retained.
 
Why did the plan change from retaining four and a half roof bays to demolishing the whole building?

At the conclusion of the public consultation process, the Council began work with at least two groups who believed they could utilise the proposed remnant structure in the future. However, none of those uses aligned with the redevelopment objectives.
 
After reassessing the costs of retaining part of the structure and the limited future uses of such a structure, Council officers realised a modification to the master plan should occur.
 
Costs to retain the four and a half bays were estimated to be in the region of $750,000.
 
Therefore the matter was brought back to an open Council meeting for the Aldermen to make a ruling.
 
The money saved will now be diverted into creating more shade and shelter structures and interpretation areas around the North Bank site.
 
Meanwhile, a private developer had also proposed using salvaged materials from any demolition in a nearby development.
 
Why wasn't there any public consultation on the decision to demolish the entire wool shed?

A public council meeting is our primary community-based consultative and decision making process. Anyone is welcome to attend a Council meeting at Town Hall, and any resident or ratepayer can ask questions of officers or Aldermen about areas of Council business. Residents or ratepayers of other municipalities are able to lodge requests to ask questions of City of Launceston Aldermen or officers, and such requests are often granted.
Local media outlets are invited to cover proceedings, and also have channels to ask questions of Aldermen or officers outside of meetings. In addition, City of Launceston Council meetings are streamed live on our website. Agendas for Council meetings are published online five days ahead of each meeting.
 
Is the wool shed heritage listed?

No.
 
Is it true that the Council 'buried' a heritage report which indicated the wool sheds had historic value?

No, not only did we request and fund that report, we also published it online — in May, 2012. It was an attachment to an agenda item in 2012 regarding the demolition of the first wool shed, at a meeting that was open to the public, streamed online and attended by representatives of the media. The report has remained online ever since and can be found here.
 
But isn't it true that the building has historic value, even if it's not heritage listed?
Yes, there is no doubt the entire site has historic value. The port and industrial activities in this part of Launceston were significant in the city's past, but the wool shed building only represents one part of that.
 
We may not be able to retain the building, but we will be able to reinterpret the site in different ways, and tell the stories of the site, which we intend to do as part of the $9m North Bank redevelopment.
 
Why can't we just keep the wool shed in its entirety? Couldn't it be used for something like an indoor market?
Firstly, the wool shed sits on the 'wet' side of the city's redeveloped flood levees, which means it would require a specially-built protective levee.
 
Secondly, the building will require significant investment to allow future use. The Council is unaware of any material proposal to conduct a market or any other activity in a wholly retained wool shed.
 
Finally, the Council has clearly indicated over a number of years that at best it only intended to retain a handful of roof bays as part of the North Bank development. Aldermen later reviewed this decision and voted for full demolition of the shed.
 
If we had an unlimited budget and unlimited time, we could no doubt find ways to refurbish and protect the building — but it was never our intent and it was never an intent we took to the community.
 
Hasn't the Council allowed new developments like Bunnings and the silos to proceed, which are not protected by the flood levees?

No, the new levee runs roughly east to west along the southern side of Lindsay Street. Bunnings sits on the northern side of the levee, and is thus protected.
 
In October, 2013, the State Government announced $1.5m in funding to allow a special flood levee to be constructed to protect the silos site. Thus it, too, is protected.
 
If a special levee can be built for the silos development, couldn't we also build one to protect the wool shed?

Potentially, but the Council does not have the funding to deliver an outcome like that. In addition, the building itself requires significant work. The other issue is demand; despite various ideas, there are no material proposals to redevelop the building.
 
Isn't it inappropriate for the Council to make such a decision at 'five minutes to midnight', so soon before the election?

There is no 'caretaker period' for Council elections like there is for other tiers of Government. However, it is important to note that Aldermen could have made a decision on demolishing the wool shed some time before the election, but instead chose to defer a decision to allow them to seek more information. Coincidentally this meant the decision was taken close to the election, but Aldermen were entirely within their rights to vote on the matter. Moreover, Aldermen had been working on the North Bank master plan for more than two years before the decision to demolish the entire shed was taken.
 
I have read on Facebook that 'a number of proposals have been put to Council in recent weeks' regarding potential future uses of the shed. Is that true?

The Council is aware of many ideas, but no material proposals. In other words, no one has approached the Council with a proposal and funds to back it.
 
 
I trust the above information will assist.
 
Regards
 

Albert van Zetten I Mayor I Launceston City Council
T 03 6323 3101 I F 03 6323 3125 I www.launceston.tas.gov.au <http://www.launceston.tas.gov.au> <http://www.launceston.tas.gov.au/>


From: Ray Norman [mailto:raynorman@eftel.net.au <mailto:raynorman@eftel.net.au> ]
Sent: Thursday, 20 November 2014 3:58 PM
To: Mayor
Cc: records
Subject: PLACEscaping Launceston

Dear Albert,

I write to express my dismay an utter disappointment with LCC’s demonstrated lack of commitment to open and transparent decision making and accountability. The thread of correspondence below is evidence of that lack of commitment so far as the North Bank Wool Stores are concerned, the matter that has gained my research attention in this instance.

Time and again I have reminded you of Launceston’s Organisational Values and the city’s Community Engagement Policy. Within these documents you find commitment to ideas that in the instance of this issue, the ways that the Roberts Woolstores can be and are understood to date, have all the hallmarks of hollow rhetoric. If the city is going to make commitments to sets of ideas its commitment will inevitably be tested. When tested they need to be, like justice, not only assumed to have value but seen to be of value.

In the graphic for the LCC Community Engagement Framework – http://www.launceston.tas.gov.au/upfiles/lcc/cont/_council/community_engagement/engaging_with_the_community/2999_lcc_community_engagement_framework_june_2014.pdf <http://www.launceston.tas.gov.au/upfiles/lcc/cont/_council/community_engagement/engaging_with_the_community/2999_lcc_community_engagement_framework_june_2014.pdf> –  you’ll see the words, “Inform, Consult, Involve, Collaborate and Empower” I put it to you that in this case these words are indeed hollow rhetoric – and needlessly so. I put it to you, on the evidence available to me in this case, any commitment to these ideals is not actually available – at least to me.

Similarly, within the online document enunciating LCC Organisation Values – http://www.launceston.tas.gov.au/lcc/index.php?c=69 <http://www.launceston.tas.gov.au/lcc/index.php?c=69> – you will find the headings “Integrity, Stewardship, Inclusion, initiative, Teamwork and of course Accountability.” Again I put it to you in this instance this too appears to be little more than  hollow rhetoric.

Attached to this email there is a thread of correspondence between myself and the General Manager regarding the evaluation of buildings in the precinct of the proposed North Bank Project – specifically the ‘Assessment of Heritage Value : Town Point Inveresk, Bain & Kleine 2011’. I pose seven simple questions and the chain of responses that I’ve received is a demonstration of  ‘bureaucratic stonewalling’.  In short, along with other evidence I’ve come across, for anyone with any experience in public administration bears all the hallmarks of a ‘cover-up’ that by extension poses a significant number of unhelpful and perhaps unwelcomed questions.

I further put it to you that I have been reliably informed that, paraphrased  ”in regard to the the wool stores there was no meaningful community consultation process except in a peripheral way as a small part of the Nort Bank process.” If that advice is wrong then there’ll be HARD evidence of the process and its outcomes.

Furthermore, I put it to you that the “Your Voice Your Launceston” functions as a marketing device more than it can be seriously regarded as a consultation mechanism. In regard to community consultation it is bureaucratically decorative and of little or no real value as a “community consultation device” given what I understand to be its poor results statistically.

I trust that you will be able to see your way clear to provide me with any contrary evidence to the assertions I’m making here in a spirit of goodwill and working towards best practice PLACEmaking in Launceston.

Regards,

Ray

Ray Norman
<zingHOUSEunlimited>
The lifestyle design enterprise and research network

PH: 03-6334 2176
EMAIL 1: raynorman@eftel.net.au <mailto:raynorman@eftel.net.au>
EMAIL 2: ray@7250.net <mailto:ray@7250.net>
40 Delamere Crescent Trevallyn TAS. 7250
WEBsite: http://www.raynorman7250.blogspot.com <http://www.raynorman7250.blogspot.com>

Ray Norman: Secretary, Steering Committee
WEBsite: http://tamarinstitute.blogspot.com/ <http://tamarinstitute.blogspot.com/>

Ray Norman: Secretary, PONRABBEL Steering Committee
WEBsite: http://ponrabbel.blogspot.com.au/ <http://ponrabbel.blogspot.com.au/>

“A body of men holding themselves accountable to nobody ought not to be trusted by anybody.” — Thomas Paine

Coordinator: co-opones (Tas Chapter)
WEBsite: http://co-opones.to/ <http://co-opones.to/>
“The only thing that will redeem mankind is cooperation” – Bertrand Russell Message
From: Ray Norman <raynorman@eftel.net.au <mailto:raynorman@eftel.net.au> >
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 10:57:31 +1100
To: Robert Dobrzynski <Robert.Dobrzynski@launceston.tas.gov.au <mailto:Robert.Dobrzynski@launceston.tas.gov.au> >
Subject: Re: AGAIN: PLACEscaping Launceston

Dear Robert,

Thank you for your responses but all the while I had LCC Organisational Values and Community Framework in mind.

Nonetheless on another subject, for the records, and since Richard is on leave, can you please inform me when it was that Council determined to change the name of the QVMAG and rebrand the institution?

 
Regards,

Ray
Ray Norman
<zingHOUSEunlimited>
The lifestyle design enterprise and research network

PH: 03-6334 2176
EMAIL 1: raynorman@eftel.net.au <mailto:raynorman@eftel.net.au>
EMAIL 2: ray@7250.net <mailto:ray@7250.net>
40 Delamere Crescent Trevallyn TAS. 7250
WEBsite: http://www.raynorman7250.blogspot.com <http://www.raynorman7250.blogspot.com>







Ray Norman: Secretary, Steering Committee
WEBsite: http://tamarinstitute.blogspot.com/ <http://tamarinstitute.blogspot.com/>

Ray Norman: Secretary, PONRABBEL Steering Committee
WEBsite: http://ponrabbel.blogspot.com.au/ <http://ponrabbel.blogspot.com.au/>
 
“A body of men holding themselves accountable to nobody ought not to be trusted by anybody.” — Thomas Paine ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Correspondence Thread

On 12/11/14 4:56 PM, "Robert Dobrzynski" <Robert.Dobrzynski@launceston.tas.gov.au <mailto:Robert.Dobrzynski@launceston.tas.gov.au> > wrote:




Thanks Ray. I have said all that I intend to on this topic.
 
No further response will be forthcoming save the numerous responses I have already provided.
 
As I have indicated previously, the matter is before the Council on November 24.
 
Regards
 
Robert
 

Robert Dobrzynski
General Manager
Launceston City Council
M 0417 158 541
T 03 6323 3102
F 03 6323 3493
www.launceston.tas.gov.au <http://www.launceston.tas.gov.au> <http://www.launceston.tas.gov.au> <http://www.launceston.tas.gov.au>


From: Ray Norman [mailto:raynorman@eftel.net.au] <mailto:raynorman@eftel.net.au]>
Sent: Wednesday, 12 November 2014 4:53 PM
To: Robert Dobrzynski
Cc: Mayor
Subject: Re: AGAIN: PLACEscaping Launceston

Good afternoon Robert,

Thank for your response and your assurance that you are comfortable with the requirements of Section 65 of the Act being met. However, it is my understanding that in regard to all the assessments relative to this site and building – the wool store specifically – there has not been a community consultation process in regard to the various ways this building – the wool store – is understood and valued by its Community of Ownership & Interest.

That is, its heritage values; its architectural values; the social histories attached to it; the cultural values invested in it; its potential uses in a 21st C context; and the economic opportunities it has to offer. Has such a study been undertaken in an open and transparent way?

If I’m wrong in my understanding that no substantial or meaningful consultation process has been undertaken, can you please point me to the information that has been gathered and the context within which it was gathered? Indeed is there any information on the public record that speaks to the ‘values’ that can be attributed to this building or indeed where its value/s is/are challenged in an evidence based context?

I look forward to your response with interest.

Regards,

Ray


Ray Norman
<zingHOUSEunlimited>
The lifestyle design enterprise and research network

PH: 03-6334 2176
EMAIL 1: raynorman@eftel.net.au <mailto:raynorman@eftel.net.au>
EMAIL 2: ray@7250.net <mailto:ray@7250.net>
40 Delamere Crescent Trevallyn TAS. 7250

WEBsite: http://www.raynorman7250.blogspot.com <http://www.raynorman7250.blogspot.com>

Ray Norman: Secretary, Steering Committee
WEBsite: http://tamarinstitute.blogspot.com/ <http://tamarinstitute.blogspot.com/>

Ray Norman: Secretary, PONRABBEL Steering Committee
WEBsite: http://ponrabbel.blogspot.com.au/ <http://ponrabbel.blogspot.com.au/>
•
“A body of men holding themselves accountable to nobody ought not to be trusted by anybody.” — Thomas Paine

Coordinator: co-opones (Tas Chapter)
WEBsite: http://co-opones.to/ <http://co-opones.to/>
 
“The only thing that will redeem mankind is cooperation” – Bertrand Russell



On 11/11/14 4:48 PM, "Robert Dobrzynski" <Robert.Dobrzynski@launceston.tas.gov.au <mailto:Robert.Dobrzynski@launceston.tas.gov.au> > wrote:
Hi Ray,
 
I am comfortable that all requirements of Section 65 of the Local Government Act have been met.
 
Regards
 
Robert
 
Robert Dobrzynski
General Manager
Launceston City Council
M 0417 158 541
T 03 6323 3102
F 03 6323 3493
www.launceston.tas.gov.au <http://www.launceston.tas.gov.au> <http://www.launceston.tas.gov.au> <http://www.launceston.tas.gov.au> <http://www.launceston.tas.gov.au> <http://www.launceston.tas.gov.au> <http://www.launceston.tas.gov.au>

From: Ray Norman [mailto:raynorman@eftel.net.au] <mailto:raynorman@eftel.net.au]>
Sent: Tuesday, 11 November 2014 4:39 PM
To: Robert Dobrzynski
Subject: RE: AGAIN: PLACEscaping Launceston

Hello Robert,

In the context of this discussion I’m sure that you are fully cognisant of the Local Govt. Act and your obligations and specifically Section 65. I refer to:
“Qualified Persons (Section 65)


• A general manager is to ensure any advice, information or recommendation given to the council or a council committee is given by a person with appropriate qualifications.
• A council or council committee must consider the expert advice before deciding on a matter unless the general manager certifies it was obtained and taken into account when providing advice to the council or council committee.”
  

If a Public Building or a building owned by the public, or publicly owned building by virtue of it being owned by government,  is to be developed, or redeveloped, the public has a legitimate interest in it in regard to the purpose of that development/redevelopment. It follows that there should/must be some ‘public consultation’ process to establish the full spectrum of public interest in the building, its site and its values – heritage, social , fiscal. How can any of this be established without a meaningful public consultation process involving the full spectrum of the community?  Has there been such a process? If so when? What form did it take? Who conducted it and under whose auspices?

Indeed, given the subjectivity of such assessments, and by extension,  how might you meet your obligations under Section 65 of the Act and take into account legitimate and informed public opinion, community aspirations and all the values ascribed to a site/building/cultural landscape? I pose these further questions in addition to my earlier questions that remain outstanding.

I submit that these questions need to be addressed in order to make an appropriate and equitable decision based on community values, Council values and the spirit of the Act. This is so in a general way and in any specific case. Thus in a general sense my questions stand.

I look forward to your response.

Regards,

Ray Ray Norman
<zingHOUSEunlimited>
The lifestyle design enterprise and research network

PH: 03-6334 2176
EMAIL 1: raynorman@eftel.net.au <mailto:raynorman@eftel.net.au>
EMAIL 2: ray@7250.net <mailto:ray@7250.net>
40 Delamere Crescent Trevallyn TAS. 7250


WEBsite: http://www.raynorman7250.blogspot.com <http://www.raynorman7250.blogspot.com>

Ray Norman: Secretary, Steering Committee
WEBsite: http://tamarinstitute.blogspot.com/ <http://tamarinstitute.blogspot.com/>

Ray Norman: Secretary, PONRABBEL Steering Committee
WEBsite: http://ponrabbel.blogspot.com.au/ <http://ponrabbel.blogspot.com.au/>
•
“A body of men holding themselves accountable to nobody ought not to be trusted by anybody.” — Thomas Paine

Coordinator: co-opones (Tas Chapter)
WEBsite: http://co-opones.to/ <http://co-opones.to/>

“The only thing that will redeem mankind is cooperation” – Bertrand Russell


------ Forwarded Message
From: Robert Dobrzynski <Robert.Dobrzynski@launceston.tas.gov.au <mailto:Robert.Dobrzynski@launceston.tas.gov.au> >
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2014 20:59:20 +0000
To: Ray Norman <raynorman@eftel.net.au <mailto:raynorman@eftel.net.au> >
Subject: RE: AGAIN: PLACEscaping Launceston

Good Morning Ray,
 
I have now received a Notice of Motion from an Alderman proposing to rescind the Council decision of October 27 regarding the North Bank Woolstores. The Notice of Motion, among other things, seeks briefings from Council staff, the Launceston Flood Authority and Heritage Tasmania in relation to the Woolstores structure, its siting and potential costs/safety issues involved in establishing the building as a community facility.
 
Accordingly, it would be inappropriate for me to comment further on this matter until the Council has determined a position.
 
Regards
 
Robert
 

Robert Dobrzynski
General Manager
Launceston City Council
M 0417 158 541
T 03 6323 3102
F 03 6323 3493
www.launceston.tas.gov.au <http://www.launceston.tas.gov.au> <http://www.launceston.tas.gov.au> <http://www.launceston.tas.gov.au> <http://www.launceston.tas.gov.au>  <http://www.launceston.tas.gov.au> <http://www.launceston.tas.gov.au> <http://www.launceston.tas.gov.au> <http://www.launceston.tas.gov.au>


From: Ray Norman [mailto:raynorman@eftel.net.au] <mailto:raynorman@eftel.net.au]>
Sent: Thursday, 6 November 2014 10:39 PM
To: Robert Dobrzynski
Subject: Re: AGAIN: PLACEscaping Launceston

Dear Robert,

The last thing I want to do is submit an RTI and if there is transparency I wont need to. Here cost is no barrier.

As a researcher I’m a strong advocate of ‘peer reviewing’ and especially ‘blind peer review processes’. So do not jump to the conclusion that I think there is something wrong with the process so long as it is done at arms length and not used to massage an outcome. That’s been known to happen and there are some famous examples.

What we have with the report I’m looking at is a “heritage assessment”. Unavoidably it is a subjective assessment dependent upon a myriad of things to have substance and credibility and qualify as evidence  – the very notion of heritage is subjective. That’s quite unlike the prudent practice of ‘triangulation’ used to test the varsity of objective/measurable conclusions and hard evidence. In the social sciences, and the practices attached to place assessment, placescaping etc. definitive ‘measurements’ are neither possible nor appropriate. Nonetheless, these conclusions once arrived at do need to be tested to minimize the ambiguity coming from the lack of evidence and guesswork.

So if you are looking for a context for my queries for there it is in a nutshell. So my questions still stand and I’m imagining that you can answer them of the top of your head in a flash. It’s just the case that I’m not in the position to speculate upon what they might be so I’ve come to the horse.

With my cultural geographer’s hat on I can do a heritage assessment myself  and even arrange my own peer review but that would not provide anything that’ll take either of us anywhere interesting. However, with a COI Audit (see below) with consultation might well provide something to measure an assessment against. I’m putting to you that this would take us somewhere quite interesting, quite quickly and with the prospects of a win-win – and not the least, with cost effectiveness. It might even illuminate the issues for the Aldermen! Might you be up for anything like that?

Regards,

Ray
Ray Norman
<zingHOUSEunlimited>
The lifestyle design enterprise and research network

PH: 03-6334 2176
EMAIL 1: raynorman@eftel.net.au <mailto:raynorman@eftel.net.au>
EMAIL 2: ray@7250.net <mailto:ray@7250.net>
40 Delamere Crescent Trevallyn TAS. 7250
WEBsite: http://www.raynorman7250.blogspot.com <http://www.raynorman7250.blogspot.com>

Prof. Bill Boyd: Review Editor & Project Coordinator
Ray Norman : Director & Project Coordinator (Tasmania)
BLOG: http://thenudgelbahinstitute.blogspot.com.au/ <http://thenudgelbahinstitute.blogspot.com.au/>
AUDITING PLACEDNESS
http://auditingplacedness.blogspot.com.au/ <http://auditingplacedness.blogspot.com.au/>

On 5/11/14 3:21 PM, "Robert Dobrzynski" <Robert.Dobrzynski@launceston.tas.gov.au <mailto:Robert.Dobrzynski@launceston.tas.gov.au> > wrote:







Hi Ray,
 
You are of course entitled to submit an RTI request seeking information on the matters you have raised. However it is not unusual to seek peer reviews on matters within the purview of Council- the Launceston Flood Authority has done so on a number of matters following my suggestion that it would be prudent practice. You would no doubt be familiar with the benefits of data triangulation as a legitimate means of testing technical advice.
 
I understand that the Council will be considering the remaining North Bank Woolstores further at a future Council meeting.
 
Regards
 
Robert
 

Robert Dobrzynski
General Manager
Launceston City Council
M 0417 158 541
T 03 6323 3102
F 03 6323 3493
www.launceston.tas.gov.au <http://www.launceston.tas.gov.au> <http://www.launceston.tas.gov.au> <http://www.launceston.tas.gov.au> <http://www.launceston.tas.gov.au> <http://www.launceston.tas.gov.au> <http://www.launceston.tas.gov.au> <http://www.launceston.tas.gov.au> <http://www.launceston.tas.gov.au> <http://www.launceston.tas.gov.au> <http://www.launceston.tas.gov.au>


From: Ray Norman [mailto:raynorman@eftel.net.au] <mailto:raynorman@eftel.net.au]>
Sent: Wednesday, 5 November 2014 2:57 PM
To: Robert Dobrzynski
Subject: AGAIN: PLACEscaping Launceston

Hello Robert,

My project here is marching on and I note that it was Friday last week that I wrote requesting information. I do not believe that I’ve received an acknowledgement of my request but it is possible that I may have missed it given the traffic going through my in-box at the moment. However, unless  I’ve received a response from you by the close of business on Friday I will initiate a RTI request where relevant and whatever other options that may be open to me I’ll follow up on them.

I look forward to your response with interest.

Regards,

Ray Ray Norman
<zingHOUSEunlimited>
The lifestyle design enterprise and research network

PH: 03-6334 2176
EMAIL 1: raynorman@eftel.net.au <mailto:raynorman@eftel.net.au>
40 Delamere Crescent Trevallyn TAS. 7250




WEBsite: http://www.raynorman7250.blogspot.com <http://www.raynorman7250.blogspot.com>

WEBsite: http://tamarinstitute.blogspot.com/ <http://tamarinstitute.blogspot.com/>

WEBsite: http://ponrabbel.blogspot.com.au/ <http://ponrabbel.blogspot.com.au/>
•
“A body of men holding themselves accountable to nobody ought not to be trusted by anybody.” — Thomas Paine

Forwarded Message
From: Ray Norman <raynorman@eftel.net.au <mailto:raynorman@eftel.net.au> >
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 11:35:48 +1100
To: Robert Dobrzynski <Robert.Dobrzynski@launceston.tas.gov.au <mailto:Robert.Dobrzynski@launceston.tas.gov.au> >
Subject: PLACEscaping Launceston

Hello Robert!

With my cultural geographer’s hat on I’ve taken on a research project relevant to Launceston – past and present imaginings. LCC is an important factor in Launceston’s PLACEscaping & PLACEmaking as you’d be aware. A useful way into the discovery of ‘Launcestonian imagings’ is an exploration of the previous literature of which there is quite a bit. Nonetheless, within LCC’s records there is probably the richest motherload given that Council’s primary business is PLACEscaping & PLACEmaking to the contrary to many of the claims/assertions made in the lead up to our recent elections.

Today I was alerted to the report  ‘Assessment of Heritage Value : Town Point Inveresk, Bain & Kleine 2011, which is pertinent to the proposed PLACEscaping of North Bank and environs.
I was also alerted to the fact you personally(?) commissioned a “peer review” of this report which raises a couple of question:


1. Did you detect a weakness/es in the report?
2. If so, can you tell me what you thought that it was  or they were?
3. If there was a peer review undertaken, what brief was supplied to the reviewers?
4. Was there any engagement with the city’s or precinct’s Community of Ownership & Interest?
5. Indeed, who did the reviewing, how were the reviewers selected and by whom actually?
6. Where might a copy of the peer reviewers’ report/s be found now?
7. What essentially did the process reveal?
   

Launceston is on the cusp of an interesting time where new economies are being constructed and are evolving in response to, sometimes oblivious to and in ignorance of, potential future developments while the city attempts to hold on to its “heritage” and live in a 21st C context. I look forward to any assistance and infot=rmation,you are able to provide in regard to this matter given the part you play in Launceston’s PLACEscaping.

Regards,

Ray
Ray Norman
<zingHOUSEunlimited>
The lifestyle design enterprise and research network

PH: 03-6334 2176
EMAIL 1: raynorman@eftel.net.au <mailto:raynorman@eftel.net.au>
EMAIL 2: ray@7250.net <mailto:ray@7250.net>
40 Delamere Crescent Trevallyn TAS. 7250
WEBsite: http://www.raynorman7250.blogspot.com <http://www.raynorman7250.blogspot.com>

WEBsite: http://tamarinstitute.blogspot.com/ <http://tamarinstitute.blogspot.com/>

WEBsite: http://ponrabbel.blogspot.com.au/ <http://ponrabbel.blogspot.com.au/>
•
“A body of men holding themselves accountable to nobody ought not to be trusted by anybody.” — Thomas Paine


<https://twitter.com/LtonCityCouncil <https://twitter.com/LtonCityCouncil <https://twitter.com/LtonCityCouncil%20%3chttps:/twitter.com/LtonCityCouncil> > >  <http://www.youtube.com/user/LauncestonCtyCouncil> <http://www.youtube.com/user/LauncestonCtyCouncil> <http://www.launceston.tas.gov.au> <http://www.launceston.tas.gov.au> <http://yourvoiceyourlaunceston.com.au/> <http://yourvoiceyourlaunceston.com.au/>
LAUNCESTON
Named Australia's most family friendly city by Suncorp 2013.
Named Tasmania's top eTown by Google 2013.
Home to Harvest Launceston, named Australia's Best Harvest Market by ABC Delicious magazine 2013.
Home to City Park, named in Australia's top ten parks by TripAdvisor 2013.
Keep Australia Beautiful - Community Action and Partnerships 2013
Tasmanian Tourism Award - Visitor Information and Services 2013
LGAT General Excellence Award - State of the Art Launceston Visitor Information Centre 2013

Please consider the environment before printing this, or any other e-mail or document.

________________________________________
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER

Information in this transmission is intended only for the person(s) to whom it is addressed and may contain privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying or dissemination of the information is unauthorised and you should delete/destroy all copies and notify the sender. No liability is accepted for any unauthorised use of the information contained in this transmission.


 <https://twitter.com/LtonCityCouncil <https://twitter.com/LtonCityCouncil <https://twitter.com/LtonCityCouncil%20%3chttps:/twitter.com/LtonCityCouncil> > >  <http://www.youtube.com/user/LauncestonCtyCouncil> <http://www.youtube.com/user/LauncestonCtyCouncil> <http://www.launceston.tas.gov.au> <http://www.launceston.tas.gov.au> <http://yourvoiceyourlaunceston.com.au/> <http://yourvoiceyourlaunceston.com.au/>
LAUNCESTON
Named Australia's most family friendly city by Suncorp 2013.
Named Tasmania's top eTown by Google 2013.
Home to Harvest Launceston, named Australia's Best Harvest Market by ABC Delicious magazine 2013.
Home to City Park, named in Australia's top ten parks by TripAdvisor 2013.
Keep Australia Beautiful - Community Action and Partnerships 2013
Tasmanian Tourism Award - Visitor Information and Services 2013
LGAT General Excellence Award - State of the Art Launceston Visitor Information Centre 2013

Please consider the environment before printing this, or any other e-mail or document.

________________________________________
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER

Information in this transmission is intended only for the person(s) to whom it is addressed and may contain privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying or dissemination of the information is unauthorised and you should delete/destroy all copies and notify the sender. No liability is accepted for any unauthorised use of the information contained in this transmission.

This disclaimer has been automatically added.

 <https://twitter.com/LtonCityCouncil>  <http://www.youtube.com/user/LauncestonCtyCouncil>  <http://www.launceston.tas.gov.au>  <http://yourvoiceyourlaunceston.com.au/>
LAUNCESTON
Named Australia's most family friendly city by Suncorp 2013.
Named Tasmania's top eTown by Google 2013.
Home to Harvest Launceston, named Australia's Best Harvest Market by ABC Delicious magazine 2013.
Home to City Park, named in Australia's top ten parks by TripAdvisor 2013.
Keep Australia Beautiful - Community Action and Partnerships 2013
Tasmanian Tourism Award - Visitor Information and Services 2013
LGAT General Excellence Award - State of the Art Launceston Visitor Information Centre 2013

Please consider the environment before printing this, or any other e-mail or document.

________________________________________
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER

Information in this transmission is intended only for the person(s) to whom it is addressed and may contain privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying or dissemination of the information is unauthorised and you should delete/destroy all copies and notify the sender. No liability is accepted for any unauthorised use of the information contained in this transmission.

This disclaimer has been automatically added.

<https://twitter.com/LtonCityCouncil> <http://www.youtube.com/user/LauncestonCtyCouncil> <http://www.launceston.tas.gov.au> <http://yourvoiceyourlaunceston.com.au/>

LAUNCESTON

Named Australia's most family friendly city by Suncorp 2013.

Named Tasmania's top eTown by Google 2013.

Home to Harvest Launceston, named Australia's Best Harvest Market by ABC Delicious magazine 2013.

Home to City Park, named in Australia's top ten parks by TripAdvisor 2013.

Keep Australia Beautiful - Community Action and Partnerships 2013

Tasmanian Tourism Award - Visitor Information and Services 2013

LGAT General Excellence Award - State of the Art Launceston Visitor Information Centre 2013
Please consider the environment before printing this, or any other e-mail or document.
________________________________________
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER

Information in this transmission is intended only for the person(s) to whom it is addressed and may contain privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying or dissemination of the information is unauthorised and you should delete/destroy all copies and notify the sender. No liability is accepted for any unauthorised use of the information contained in this transmission.

This disclaimer has been automatically added.

 <https://twitter.com/LtonCityCouncil>  <http://www.youtube.com/user/LauncestonCtyCouncil>  <http://www.launceston.tas.gov.au>  <http://yourvoiceyourlaunceston.com.au/>
LAUNCESTON
Named Australia's most family friendly city by Suncorp 2013.
Named Tasmania's top eTown by Google 2013.
Home to Harvest Launceston, named Australia's Best Harvest Market by ABC Delicious magazine 2013.
Home to City Park, named in Australia's top ten parks by TripAdvisor 2013.
Keep Australia Beautiful - Community Action and Partnerships 2013
Tasmanian Tourism Award - Visitor Information and Services 2013
LGAT General Excellence Award - State of the Art Launceston Visitor Information Centre 2013

Please consider the environment before printing this, or any other e-mail or document.

________________________________________
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER

Information in this transmission is intended only for the person(s) to whom it is addressed and may contain privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying or dissemination of the information is unauthorised and you should delete/destroy all copies and notify the sender. No liability is accepted for any unauthorised use of the information contained in this transmission.

This disclaimer has been automatically added.