Saturday, 12 July 2014

TO Robert D: ADVICE

NOTE: The CONFIDENTIALITY of this correspondence is arguably clear

Forwarded Message
From: Ray Norman <raynorman@eftel.net.au>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 17:06:02 +1000
To: Robert Dobrzynski <Robert.Dobrzynski@launceston.tas.gov.au>
Subject: ADVICE

CONFIDENTIAL

Dear Robert,

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.

Likewise the MGAB received a copy of the most recent MMC-Link report. This document and its merits or otherwise is undiscussable on the grounds that:


  1. The brief to which it responds is absent and consequently its purpose is far from being readable, clear and unambiguous to the reader and possibly to the consultant also;
  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.

Consequently, the questions arising out of all this are:
  • Of what value is the report?
  • Upon what evidence of what expertise, qualified advice and domain knowledge was the report commissioned?
Apart from that, there's not much to be said about the report except 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 our rates are being expended upon projects that deliver such poor outcomes.

You have drawn your 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, you rely upon in this instance 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 look forward to your advice on these matters.

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.
Last Message
From: Ray Norman <raynorman@eftel.net.au>
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 13:05:36 +1000
 I findTo: Robert Dobrzynski <Robert.Dobrzynski@launceston.tas.gov.au>
Subject: Re: AGAIN: Regarding Policy Determination

Dear Robert,

Thank you for your response and the confirmation that you have indeed formed a firm view on the matter of Section 62 and the implications embedded in it. I am nonetheless somewhat surprised that you are so confident in your response as it seems that on the evidence your position is somewhat like the analogy my dentist uses “ heroic”, used by him to describe cutting a swath through complexity, acting directly and all the while being in possession of a scarcity reliable information.

The discussion/research I’m currently involved with is increasingly bumping up against scenarios like Section 65 that lead to expectation that are consistent in one thing only ... that is their unreliability. I put it to you that in a 21st C context, Section 65 of the Act is redundant. For example, no matter which side of the political fence one sits, the Abbott/Hockey mantra that “the age of entitlement is over” has new veracity. What’s actually open to debate is its application and we see that unfolding before us. So, if advice is consistent in its unreliability, how can it be relied upon?

Given Council’s Organisational Values and Community Engagement Policy plus the fact that ratepayers have a long term investment in the QVMAG I imagined my request for a copy of any written submission(s?) to the State Govt. was quite in order. Thus your response is somewhat at odds with Council’s values and its engagement policy. If your advice is not fearless and free, and not contentious are, backed up by independent arm’s length advice, it arguably is open the the criticism of being self serving rather than as intended by the organisational values and engagement policy.

Again I refer you to: http://www.launceston.tas.gov.au/upfiles/lcc/cont/_council/community_engagement/engaging_with_the_community/2187_lcc_community_engagement_framework_r_jan_2013.pdf

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

http://qvmag-musingplace.blogspot.com.au/
nudgelbah project site: http://networkedmusers.blogspot.com.au

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


On 12/06/14 12:37 PM, "Robert Dobrzynski" <Robert.Dobrzynski@launceston.tas.gov.au> wrote:


Good Afternoon Ray,

You ask in your email below what resources I rely upon to establish the veracity of my declaration under section 65 of the Local Government act 1993. I am of course able to avail myself of the expertise available within the Council's employment to advise on the majority of matters. In instances where the requisite expertise may not be in the employment of the Council I am able to engage such specialist external advice such as appropriate to the circumstances in my judgement. This is not limited.

In regard to the Council's representations to the State Government in relation to QVMAG, I do not believe it is appropriate for me to make available to you details of discussions that the Mayor and I may have had with the Premier, Treasurer and Minister at this time.

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>


From: Ray Norman [mailto:raynorman@eftel.net.au]
Sent: Thursday, 12 June 2014 11:10 AM
To: Robert Dobrzynski
Subject: AGAIN: Regarding Policy Determination
Dear Robert,

I would appreciate your response to the question I’ve put to you in regard to Section 65 of the Act in my earlier email below. It’s been put to me that currently the corporate sector and civic administrations relying upon the veracity of such, let’s call them assertions, are the ones that are failing to compete as is being demonstrated by the flagging wellbeing of say Telstra,  Australia Post and various other ‘utilities’. Now I’m sure that you’ve formed a view on all this and I’d be interested to hear from you on it given that you are working on the coalface as it were.

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

Forwarded Message
From: Ray Norman <raynorman@eftel.net.au>
Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2014 17:46:28 +1000
To: Robert Dobrzynski <Robert.Dobrzynski@launceston.tas.gov.au>
Subject: Regarding Policy Determination

Dear Robert,

Yesterday I was able to visit Town Hall and view the Register of Delegated Authorities albeit in a less than best practice format and acknowledged as such by yourself I believe. I must say that before coming in I was alerted to Council’s Community Engagement Policy fulsomely endorsed by you. I did find it a very good document, but more to the point an edifying document of the highest order relevant to my current research. I refer to: http://www.launceston.tas.gov.au/upfiles/lcc/cont/_council/community_engagement/engaging_with_the_community/2187_lcc_community_engagement_framework_r_jan_2013.pdf  Congratulations for its development are in order!

That said, viewing the Register raises a few issues:

  1. A number of the Delegations are quite old and in the scheme of things this would seem to raise various concerns;
  2. It is apparent that viewing the Register is not encouraged or is the taking of copies albeit that I was able to clarify this with Mr Davis; and
  3. It would not be unreasonable to draw the conclusion that some Delegations may now be redundant or for whatever reason may have outlived their veracity or usefulness.
I recall one of the adjoining Councils informing me that it was standard practice the declare all Delegations redundant and reinstate those seen as being required on the agenda of each new Council. My advice is that this is regarded best practice in the corporate world and it makes very good sense that it be seen that way.

You may recall advising me that “ Section 65 of the Act indicates that the Council cannot decide on any matter that requires the advice of a qualified person (in effect any matter) without the General Manager's certification that such advice has been provided.”  Now that your ‘Policy Determination Authority’ in regard to the QVMAG is clear and unambiguous, and given that you invoked Section 65 of the Act when I wrote first on this subject, a question arises. That is, upon whose, or what, independent qualified/expert advice do you rely upon in regard to QVMAG Policy determination? Indeed, by way of comparison, given the breadth, diversity and scope of the LCC operation, what resources do you employ, rely upon, to certify advice’s relevance/veracity in accord wit Section 65 in regard to any matter?

Flowing on from all this there is the issue of representations to the Stat Govt. regarding its ongoing funding for QVMAG.  The MGAB has requested access to any written presentation to the State Govt. and it is apparent that this request is outstanding. If such a submission has been made, in accord with LCC’s Community Engagement Policy, how might I as a ratepayer and member of the QVMAG’s Community of Ownership & Interest get access to it?

I look forward to your response at your earliest opportunity.

Regards,

Ray Norman
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: www.raynorman7250.blogspot.com <http://www.raynorman7250.blogspot.com>
------ End
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










Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)