FROM Mayor: ADVICE .... Thu, 26 Jun 2014 23:35:58 +0000

------ Forwarded Message
From: Mayor <Mayor@launceston.tas.gov.au>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2014 23:35:58 +0000
To: Ray Norman <raynorman@eftel.net.au>
Subject: RE: ADVICE

Hi Ray

Thank you for your interest and concerns re; QVMAG over the many years which has been appreciated.  I believe that we should explore all options in seeking additional funding for QVMAG from the State Government.  I am satisfied that the Council is doing that and will continue in these endeavours unrelentingly.  However should you have any thoughts or ideas on how this should be done differently, I believe you should present them through the Governance Advisory Group and have the Chair inform Council of these ideas. I believe that the Council is acting in the best interests of ratepayers.

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/>


From: Ray Norman [mailto:raynorman@eftel.net.au]
Sent: Tuesday, 24 June 2014 8:45 PM
To: Mayor
Subject: ADVICE

CONFIDENTIAL

Dear Albert,

I write to you with a number of what I regard to be serious matters on my mind. Not all are directly to do with the QVMAG but all will have some impact on the QVMAG as an operation and as a cultural institution. All have something to do with the quality of LCC decision making plus the issues of accountability and council as a  productive and innovative workplace.

I acknowledge that I am in part in receipt of privileged knowledge in regard to QVMAG which is concerning given the culture of opacity that seems to be in play at LCC and thus the QVMAG. Concerningly, I find all this to be at odds with Council’s organisational values and its policy of community engagement beyond the QVMAG.

LCC’s Representations to State Govt. Re QVMAG
Having received a copy of the written representations Council has made to the State Government on behalf of Launceston’s ratepayers I find that, going by the document, the arguments presented are largely unconvincing and in many cases are arguably based on errors of perception. More could be made of that but there is little point as clearly a stronger case needs to be mounted if State Govt. funding is to be be secured even at the present level. My experience tells me that even that outcome is likely to be very difficult to achieve and I have written separately to the GM expressing these concerns. This prospect does not appear to be on anyone’s agenda and that is a concern given all that Launcestonians and so many benefactors have contributed/invested in the institution and its collections.

The Advice LCC is Privileging Re QVMAG
The MGAB received a copy of the most recent MMC-Link report. This document and its merits or otherwise are undiscussable on the grounds that:

1. The brief to which it responds is absent and consequently its purpose is opaque plus far from being readable, clear and unambiguous to the reader – and arguably any reader;
2. The expertise and qualifications that have been brought to bear in regard to the task at hand is not articulated;
3. Any evidence for the assertions the report makes are not presented. Indeed nothing useful is disclosed, unless of course one believes that a computer program/model is an/the expert!
4. No actions are indicated as a result of the report;
5. No conclusions are drawn nor recommendations made and supported by clear evidence; and
   

all these points are easily made and are comprehensible to anyone reading the report. Given the cost of the report this is more than concerning!

I put it to you that a more credible, and more inclusive effort, needs to be made. Moreover, it needs to be based upon consultation and collaborative domain knowledge and the sooner the better.

Section 65 Local Govt. Act
As a consequence of the above, questions arise out of all this:

• Of what value is this report, or indeed any of the MMC-Link Report relevant to QVMAG?
• Upon what evidence of what expertise, qualified advice and domain knowledge was the report commissioned?
• Upon what expertise and domain knowledge is Council relying upon, or able to rely upon, in regard to the QVMAG and the expenditure of $4million plus of ratepayer funds plus the additional tax payer funds spent recurrently?
• Is this cluster of reporting and consultancies indicative of the quality and veracity of the expertise Councils relies upon and has relied upon generally?
  

Apart from that, there's not much to be said about the current MMC-Link report except to say that far too much of it is inaccessible to Aldermen (about 60%) while the rest makes a number of claims without producing any evidence to support them. As a ratepayer I find all this somewhat distressing in that significant sums of money drawn from our rates are being expended upon projects that deliver such poor outcomes. I would appreciate your comments on this.

The GM has drawn his role in regard to Section 65 of the Local Govt. Act to my attention. I now ask, consistent with the Act, upon whose expertise, or what qualifications and domain knowledge, does he, and thus Council, rely upon in regard to consultancies in general and the most recent reports relevant to QVMAG and other matters?

Furthermore, upon what advice do Aldermen rely to ensure that aldermen are best placed to fulfil their policy determining and decision making roles and at the same time be truly accountable to their constituency?

I should advise you that I have written to the GM seeking similar advice to that which I’m now seeking from you independently. I see these matters as being important and worthy of urgent attention. Therefore, I look forward to your early advice on these issues. I also trust that you are able to assure me, and ratepayers generally, that Council, on the evidence, is indeed committed to:

• Conducting itself accountably in accord with the Act;
• Conducting itself ethically and equitably;  and
• Conducting itself  in close accord with its own organisational values and its community engagement policy.
  

Regards,

Ray

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.

 <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.


------ End of Forwarded Message