The Ghost Of The Tail That Waggeth the Dog

Whenever you think hard about the goings on at Launceston's Town Hall you tend to want excuses for doing something nice.

In looking for a system in the bureaucratic world that is less effective and in regard to getting stuff done you inevitably find yourself asking, "How in GOD's world can this be?" 

This is a worrying question to be asking about as only a small part of the overall puzzle. People are startled when it is mentioned, particularly programmers, who tend to see themselves as the centre of the systems universe not unlike corporate executives. 

One can counter by asking, "What exactly does a programmer do?" or indeed "What indeed does a executive manager do?" After much discussion, we might end up with the same answer, "a programmer/manager takes human understandable specifications and converts it to a machine/person executable program, either by writing and compiling source code or sending out memos often through some interpreter capable of generating the program or implementing a money gathering process." 

This, in turn, leads to an interesting discussion as to what is meant by "requirements" – it seems everyone has their own spin on this. More importantly, it leads to a discussion as to what exactly a system/process/protocol is. 

If one is to follow this by posing the question, "How many programs make up a system? One? Two? Three? Is a suite of programs a system?" 

Again, after much discussion it might be concluded that there is no finite number of programs in a system, it is as many as satisfies the system's needs – and again we're back to "requirements" or compliance. 

One finally asks if a system can be implemented without computer assistance – without programs or without compliance. The programmers typically balk at this one, but grudgingly admit an information system can be implemented manually or through the use of other equipment. 

Actually, information systems have been used for hundreds of years, well before the advent of the computer. As one of our more famous Bryce's Laws points out, "The first on-line, real-time, interactive, data base system was double-entry bookkeeping which was developed by the merchants of Venice in 1200 A.D." 

In other words, computer programming is but one way to implement an information system, or ca fiscal compliance system, but certainly not the only way. 

This premise implies information systems and management structures where many are much larger in scope than programming, and that systems have two dimensions, a logical side and a physical side. 

The logical side defines the various business processes comprising the system – aka, "sub-systems". 

Thus processes can be implemented through manual processing, use of other equipment, with computer assistance, or combinations of all three. Even client/constituency engagement works in the 21st C.

Physical processing changes more dynamically than the logical simply because technology changes.

Then come 'VALUE SYSTEMS' and protocols that tend to exist in 'management' in order that they can be ignored.

SEE: CoL: Our Vision, Purpose and Values

LINK ... https://www.launceston.tas.gov.au/Council/Our-Vision-Purpose-and-Values

CITY OF LAUNCESTON OPEN SESSION MEETINGS AND 21ST C STANDARDS

 

The City of Launceston conducts itself as if it were operating in a time warp and in the context of the late 19th cum 20th C. In turn the Council tends to render itself a peri-colonial irrelevance in 2022. 

Curiously, the signals that Council sends out is that it is symbolically linking itself to the Cornwell Launceston in the UK in some strange way. 

 'Launceston' has a conflicted history that increasingly calls its citizens to consider how they wish to identify themselves now and in the context of a more diverse cultural reality and a changing world. 

Importantly, all this is something that has been evolving relative to understanding 'place and placemaking' – local governance's actual business – for decade upon decade in Launceston. 

In 2022 looking forward, and in a marketing context, the question has to be asked is why ever would 'Council', and Councillors, want to cast itself/themselves as being Eurocentric and dressed up in Medieval garb. 

In the light of Launceston's, indeed Tasmania's, indeed Australia's need to reimagine itself in the light of current understandings of what 'cultural identity' entails plus current understandings of 'place', well there is a real need for change. 

That's so, rather than some romantic and outdated imagining in a marketing sense.

It is sheer folly to continue to pretend that the city's future should be entirely tied up in sensibilities that are far from where the mindset of governance ideally could be. Shedding the city of its peri--colonialism could be nothing less than positive in the 21st C.

Actually getting rid of the Medieval 'bling' and pretentious ostentatiousness could be to a large extent something on top of what is required to get the city on track to being more relevant. To look more realistically ahead the city needs to move proactively into 21st digital era as a first step.

With this in mind Council really does need to meet in public more overtly. The current strategy of static live streaming meetings when digitally and more inclusive opportunities exist is unexplainable. It is concerning that such changes are apparently being assiduously resisted. If that is because a greater level of inclusivity is not welcomed, what is needed is a change agent to bring Council into the 21st C more overtly. 

Possibly, the status quo is quite comfortable with 'old expectations' that includes the 'Parkinson's Law' factor that reign supreme in Launceston's Town Hall. In the 21st C 'indirect representational democracy' is increasingly less and less relevant in regard to delivering effective transparent and accountable governance.

It is time, to seriously reassess how local governance in Tasmania performs and operates in line with what it delivers to ratepayers, investors and others. Any notion that the status quo is good enough is seriously flawed and belongs in some imagining of the past that in the end is a serious folly. 

As Albert Einstein tells us "learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow" there is a need to be mindful of the unavoidable change imperative in the 21st C and to actually get on with the change.

Learn to pronounce

FOR WHAT PURPOSE ARE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS HELD?

OPINION: With the last Local Govt election results seemingly settling in it is timely to ask what's changed. Most people who voted did so without fully realising that they were not really changing all that much actually. Almost immediately they were introduced to the ‘status quo’ and indoctrinated with its ins and outs along with being informed of their need to comply and be ‘team players’.

In Launceston there were Councillors who stood down, others that didn't cut it this time and five incumbents returned. Not to put too fine a point on it, for the most part 'being on Council' is a SIDEgig and depending upon personal circumstances quite a lucrative one.

The electorate pays way too little attention to the unelected 'executive management' most of whom are in receipt of what might be understood as obscene salaries compared with Federal and State politicians, senior academic posts and in the corporate sector. It turns out that in the most part Local Govt. 'officials' have been allowed to become a self-serving, self-important, self-assessing, self-accountable, cohort  of functionaries who are in reality 'public servants'. 

Yes these 'servants' might have experience and expertise but not by necessity. There is no standard qualification for a 'council officer' as is the case for say university appointments. Here the lack of a PhD will see a candidate kicked off just about any short list these days sight unseen – and for positions up and down the pay scale. In Local Govt. however, 'functionaries' can rise meteorically from nowhere – say Health Inspector, File Clerk, whatever – to some dizzy hight based on who would/could know.  Shakespeare tells us that "a fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool". If only managerial functionaries were better versed in, and payed closer attention to, 'The Bard's ' innate wisdom. Mouthing the words is never enough and any fool can make a rule while only a fool will adhere to it.

Down at, 0r is it up at, Launceston's Town Hall there is a document that has been growing in scope and scale uninhibited. Essentially, it catalogues how 'elected representatives' have been seduced into disempowering themselves in deference to an unelected, unrepresentative and largely unaccountable 'managers and functionaries' who operate on the imperative to draw ever larger salary packages. This is where 'Parkinson's Law' kicks in with underlings needing underlings who in their turn need/want more underlings. And, the bureaucracy "grows like Topsy" – without planning or design. Launceston's current Register Of Delegated Authorities runs to 76 pages – about equal in number to the number of trombones in a "André Rieu's BIGband".

If one was to have the tenacity – or indeed the temerity – to go and inspect this document with all its attendant bureaucratic HUMbug you'd be not too short of the mark to call out what you would be faced with as a 'bureaucratic SNOWjob'. It exists to terrify the public and arguably to befuddle the 'elected Councillors' in one foul swoop. In any event it turns out to be an exemplar of managerially driven bastardry when implemented at it worst.

All that said and acknowledged, there is some functional purposefulness in delegating the authority to perform various and largely administrative functions to 'the hired help' when and if they have the appropriate experience and skill sets. The ever attendant danger is that they are assumed, unverified or just not there. 

After that, when and if 'governance functions' – policy determination plus strategic rationalisation and resolution – are devolved to 'management' any operation is ever likely to quickly fall into disarray and into a paradigm where transparency and accountability is discretionary at best.

It is clear that Councillors can be quickly persuaded that they lack the wherewithal to determine policy and the appropriate strategies for effective governance. If this is born out on the evidence the Councillors should not be there. If they do indeed have the skills and experience then 'management' oversteps the mark and is usurping the function and purpose of governance. If it is worse than that, in so much as 'the governors' devolve their 'authority' to a cohort of chancers in management in search of an 'easy life', that is inexcusable, unconscionable and unprincipled laziness.

With 76 pages setting out what authority Councillors have lost over time makes the City of Launceston'sRegister Of Delegated Authorities a somewhat contentious document and one that is arguably in serious need of regularisation. Conceivably attention to that task year ago would have been way too late!

LINK TO THE COUNCIL SITE'S DOCUMENT

PLEASE CLICK ON AN IMAGE TO ENLARGE

PLEASE CLICK ON AN IMAGE TO ENLARGE

LINK

THREE QUESTIONS TO MAYOR AND COUNCILLORS FOR THEIR NEXT MEETING

Current Councillors LINK

QUESTION 1 

Will Council proactively review its “Nature Strip Policy” in order that it be a 21st C relevant policy and similarly a policy that is strategically better placed to address: 

• ... Diverse cultural landscaping imperatives relevant to the precincts in which diverse communities make their home and develop their homeplaces; and 

• ... The expression of diverse cultural realities in the municipality’s cultural landscaping; and

• ... Sustainable environmental concerns and issues in the context of Council’s ‘CLIMATE EMERGENCY POLICY’; and

• ...  Increasing canopy cover in the urban environment by 30% plus; and 

• ... The replacement of lost trees either on site or elsewhere via offset protocols; and 

• ... The role ‘nature strips’ can play in regard to carbon retention and sequestration; and 

• ... Meaningful community engagement in regard to community members profitably investing in diverse environmental strategies on nature strips and elsewhere in collaboration with Council? 

 QUESTION 2 

In accord with ‘best corporate practice’ will Councillors immediately cancel ALL “Delegated Authorities” in order that those actually required currently and in the short term can be assessed, reviewed and reinstated with others, if any, being assigned on a case-by-case basis over time and on a demonstrated and evidenced needs basis in accord with the Local Government Act and judicious policy determinations by all new Councillors?

QUESTION 3 

Against the background that Launceston’s CBD is clearly faltering and clearly failing to meet community expectations and aspirations will Council now proactively initiate a new and meaningful community engagement strategy towards meeting community expectations and hopes along with the various business communities’ needs and aspirations that is mindful of: 

• ... Council’s demonstrated predisposition to impose outcomes upon its constituency rather than in accord with evidence bases community needs and aspirations; and 

• ... Constituents’ various and diverse expectations relative to their investments in the city cum municipality; and 

• ... The history of extraordinary expenditures on project that have essentially not delivered on expectations; and The currently underwhelming social environment and outmoded cultural landscaping despite extraordinary budget allocation that have places heavy imposts upon City of Launceston constituents?

Ray Norman