TASMANIAN DDD NOW!

 

CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO ENLARGE

Against the background that Tasmania's Local Governance Act 1993 is long past it USEbyDATE plus the fact that on the evidence, in a 21st C context, the Act is no longer 'fit for purpose', the burning question is WHAT'S NEXT!

The status quo that tells us that only 52.8%  of Tasmanian men and 46.9 % of Tasmanian women read at a functional level, should be causing alarm bells to be ringing very loudly – but they are not. After that the 'white males' are disproportionately the decision makers within every level governance. Plus, there are those at every level of Local Govt who exploit the status quo to their 'fiscal advantage'. 

Indeed, the higher up the 'bureaucratic ladder' you go the evidence for the exploitation of 'status quo' gets to be increasingly evident – and all too often cynically so! Even more to the point, 'the Act' compounds the situation in SECTION 62/2. This provision in the Act' is antithetic to transparency and accountability. In fact, a Council concerned about negative perceptions in regard to its accountability might well move NOW to proactively address the issue of accountability and 21st C RELEVANCE at the upcoming Local Govt. Elections.

Quite apart from anything else, an incumbent cohort of Councillors might well take the opportunity to dispel the perception that they are wedded to the status quo and moreover that they are willing to commit  the opportunities 21st C technologies offer to enhance the functionality of local governance via Direct Deliberative Democracy (DDD).

HOW MIGHT THIS BE ACHIEVED?

At the upcoming Local Govt Elections a Council – or indeed multiple Councils – initiate an 'ELECTORS POLL' that provides constituents with the opportunity to vote on 2 questions:

1. ... Do you endorse the proposal that Council empanel a STANDING CITIZEN'S ASSEMBLY that:

• Has a standing membership of 9 members randomly invited through a civic lottery with chairperson appointed by the membership;
• Has a standing membership that changes completely in not less that 18 months;
• Every 6 months 4 members stand down to be replaced by randomly invited members via a civic lottery;
• Meets not less than monthly to deliberate upon an agenda determined by its members and formally reports to Council monthly;
• Independently publishes its agendas and minutes on the public record;
• Is empowered to empanel up to 3 experts per meeting to inform critical deliberations;
• Is empowered to appoint a SPECIAL PURPOSE ASSEMBLY with its membership randomly invited through a civic lottery and that a has a tenure of no more than 6 months. 

YES       NO

2. ... Do you endorse the proposal that the agendas and minutes of ALL Council committees be placed on the public record.

YES       NO

At this time it is the cheapest time to initiate a Local Govt Electors Poll and the opportunity should not be missed IF a jurisdiction wishes to engage more overtly with its constituency towards achieving enhanced and more inclusive outcomes

A TINY FRACTION THAT SPEAKS VOLUMES ABOUT THE WHOLE

Despite criticism from community members, City of Launceston council passed the recommendation to award a $530,000 contract to Tas City Building – a business a Councillor has an interest in – to build shower and bathroom facilities for Town Hall workers and Councillors. 

Clearly there is a majority of  Launceston's Councillor who believe they are entitled and have a 'divine right' to do what they like when they like. Indeed, when the GM/CEO auspices a concept and when he taps them on the shoulder with his SECTION62/2 empowerment wand they become all the more and more emboldened. Greed is infectious!

The project will also see change rooms and waste management be build at the annex. The total budget allocation for the project is $610,000. [VALUE LINK]

Somewhat curiously there are off-the-shelf ‘end-of-trip-showers’ available for approx. $10K each. [LINK] However, the suppliers are apparently disinclined to offer ‘dividends’ to people placing orders as they value their business’ reputation. So, on the evidence this firm could supply 10units for 10% of the GM/CEO’s budget allocation! Even so, they probably do not come with the dividends that speculatively some suppliers offer.

How can that be? How can the constituency challenge this outrageous wasteful project?

The controversy around the project came when the tender for the project in December 2021 failed to attract any applicants and council moved to award the contract to Tas City Building. However, how hard did management try to find either more firms to tender or seek another way to fulfil the projects' purpose?

Clearly the GM/CEO and/or the Mayor haven’t ensured that Council officers delivered on due diligence or is this a case where the competence of City of Launceston’s Management has been tested beyond its capacity to deliver? 

It is of more than some concern that Councillors revisited the previously lost recommendation at the very next council meeting when more of the 'inclined incumbents would be in attendance. 

Is this an exemplar where you keep on voting until you get it RIGHT as is the case in TOTALARIN GOVERNANCE like Italy’s once was? 

Councillors Paul Spencer and Tim Walker spoke against the recommendation, and at the previous meeting the two councillors had abstained. Will they be rewarded for this at the upcoming Local Govt elections or will those seeking DIVINE RIGHTS do all they can to interfere with their chances now, at election time and/or after IF Launcestonians vote for them given that on this occasion they spoke up for fiscal restraint?

Cr Spencer said he couldn't understand why council had only reached out to one business and not three. "To go to one without giving anyone else the opportunity is totally wrong, I can't see why this can't go back to tender," he said. In fact there wasn't one voice in support this proposition.

Again, is this an exemplar where you keep on voting until you get it RIGHT as is the case in TOTALARIN GOVERNANCE like Italy’s once was? 

While Cr Walker said he was not against having these facilities available to council staff, it might no longer reflect the "mood" of the community. What an outrageous idea, taking the ‘community MOOD’ into account! 

In speaking for this recommendation, Cr Andrea Dawkins said the argument was going "around and around." Yes, she spotted the problem … keep going around and around until you get it RIGHT but she couldn't go that far a vote accordingly

Cr Andrea Dawkins - argument going around and around in circles, decision of a previous council, this is reactionary, not showing us at our best "Is this the way we want council to operate?" she said. 

"We have a motion before us. We can either support it or not." Yes, she spotted the problem … keep going around and around until you all get it RIGHT … It only matters, apparently, that the GM/CEO gets the outcome HE wants, right, wrong, reactionary of no… Cr Dawkins also needs to read a dictionary from time to time, it’d help her heaps!

Deputy mayor Danny Gibson said the move was about getting things done in the city. "We can do one of two things," he said. "We can either stop work and do nothing or we can keep moving forward." 

NO, NO, NO there is a third thing to do! As ‘representatives’ Councillors might well consider putting aside their DIVINE RIGHTS stance and investigate the options Direct Deliberative Democracy opens up! If you are about to seek 'public endorsement' at an election it would be prudent to listen to the 'public's protests' as the consequences of not doing so could well be expensive.

However, it is written in The Illiad “Sit still and wait for orders from your officers, who are better men than you, coward and weakling that you are, counting for nothing in battle or debate. We cannot all be kings here; and mob rule is a bad thing. Let there be one commander only, one king, set over us by Zeus the Son of Cronos of the Crooked Ways” 

The purpose of this tale is to in some way demonstrate the consequence of disconnecting GOVERNANCE from 'the governed'.and the need to get on with connecting the two things.