 |
| Click above to enlarge |
Launceston City Council, rather its General Manager Robert Dobrzynski, seems to like social media. Also, he apparently sees it as the new-way-to-go in respect to community consultation and accountability.
There is that old, old bureaucratic dictum "never go into a meeting unless you already know its outcome." Social media is very good for enabling that and for the most part it does not provide credible evidence for anything much except for its own very existence.
However, properly used and effectively networked, the Internet and social media can deliver extraordinary outcomes.
Increasingly Launceston City Council, and to various degrees other councils also, as a consequence of the Local Govt. Act 1993 are finding hiding-places in their council operation to disguise, mask, and sometimes secrete, various classes of information.
Thursday’s EXAMINER, when it hit the streets with its ink barely dry, carried somewhat flabbergasting news(?) ..... Launceston City Council’s general manager, regards, face-to-face meetings as “antiquated” and that ”we[?] do not reply [to questions] at a public meeting because people do not come out to public meetings.”
The question hanging there is who, in the current context, does “we” refer to? Is it himself, is it his staff or is it the mayor and/or aldermen? Indeed, who is the council here? Is it the general manager? Or is it the Mayor and aldermen?
It seems that through his assertion Robert Dobrzynski has posed a number of questions to do with accountability that require answers.
It also seems that hubris can breed hubris and that Robert Dobrzynski is deeming that SOCIAL MEDIA automatically counts for MEANINGFUL COMMUNITY CONSULTATION even when its manipulated in ways that exponents of Machiavellianism would approve of – indeed would perhaps advocate and congratulate.
Launceston’s general manager may well think face-to-face public meetings, AGMs included, are antiquated but quite simply the current Local Govt. Act 1993 requires them to be held albeit in accord with antiquated rules.
They should not be seen as an opportunity to hold ratepayers and residents, council constituencies, in contempt,.
By extension, it now appears that it is in fact the Local Govt. Act that is “antiquated” and that it no longer fits the circumstances of the 21st C.
Moving on however, was Launceston’s 2015 AGM conducted and in accord with the Act?
The AGM’s consequent, and belated, report in the Examiner put paid to any notion that Launceston City Council is serious about effective communication via social media and the Internet more generally.
Notably, Launceston City Council has not posted a media release on its website since March 2014. Its website tells us that there is an online newsletter but there is no archive. Facebook is notorious for burying information in trivia, not the least the council's page.
Likewise, social media 'feedback' can be, and typically is, orchestrated and massaged. All of which can add up to a kind of opacity masquerading as 'transparency' and 'consultation'.
Administrative secrecy typically points to some necessity to hide information. What's being hidden? Why?
Ratepayers – conscripted constituency of investors – rely entirely upon the official and verifiable records in order to discover the extent to which their interests are being served and to assess the value of dividends they are, or are not, receiving or that are, or aren't, being delivered.
In what manner does the general manager Robert Dobrzynski propose that legitimate questions from ratepayers and others get an answer? Is it the case that he believes that it is now his role to answer all questions and only then at his discretion? Under his vision of accountability are the aldermen, the ratepayers' representatives:
The Local Govt. Act 1993 cannot, should not, be construed in the way it appears to be. However, it is nonetheless antiquated and no longer fit for purpose.
That said, it is not management's role to reinvent/reimagine accountability with its own aspirations and ambitions prioritised.
There is that old, old bureaucratic dictum "never go into a meeting unless you already know its outcome." Social media is very good for enabling that and for the most part it does not provide credible evidence for anything much except for its own very existence.
However, properly used and effectively networked, the Internet and social media can deliver extraordinary outcomes.
Increasingly Launceston City Council, and to various degrees other councils also, as a consequence of the Local Govt. Act 1993 are finding hiding-places in their council operation to disguise, mask, and sometimes secrete, various classes of information.
Thursday’s EXAMINER, when it hit the streets with its ink barely dry, carried somewhat flabbergasting news(?) ..... Launceston City Council’s general manager, regards, face-to-face meetings as “antiquated” and that ”we[?] do not reply [to questions] at a public meeting because people do not come out to public meetings.”
The question hanging there is who, in the current context, does “we” refer to? Is it himself, is it his staff or is it the mayor and/or aldermen? Indeed, who is the council here? Is it the general manager? Or is it the Mayor and aldermen?
It seems that through his assertion Robert Dobrzynski has posed a number of questions to do with accountability that require answers.
It also seems that hubris can breed hubris and that Robert Dobrzynski is deeming that SOCIAL MEDIA automatically counts for MEANINGFUL COMMUNITY CONSULTATION even when its manipulated in ways that exponents of Machiavellianism would approve of – indeed would perhaps advocate and congratulate.
Launceston’s general manager may well think face-to-face public meetings, AGMs included, are antiquated but quite simply the current Local Govt. Act 1993 requires them to be held albeit in accord with antiquated rules.
They should not be seen as an opportunity to hold ratepayers and residents, council constituencies, in contempt,.
By extension, it now appears that it is in fact the Local Govt. Act that is “antiquated” and that it no longer fits the circumstances of the 21st C.
Moving on however, was Launceston’s 2015 AGM conducted and in accord with the Act?
The AGM’s consequent, and belated, report in the Examiner put paid to any notion that Launceston City Council is serious about effective communication via social media and the Internet more generally.
Notably, Launceston City Council has not posted a media release on its website since March 2014. Its website tells us that there is an online newsletter but there is no archive. Facebook is notorious for burying information in trivia, not the least the council's page.
Likewise, social media 'feedback' can be, and typically is, orchestrated and massaged. All of which can add up to a kind of opacity masquerading as 'transparency' and 'consultation'.
Administrative secrecy typically points to some necessity to hide information. What's being hidden? Why?
Ratepayers – conscripted constituency of investors – rely entirely upon the official and verifiable records in order to discover the extent to which their interests are being served and to assess the value of dividends they are, or are not, receiving or that are, or aren't, being delivered.
In what manner does the general manager Robert Dobrzynski propose that legitimate questions from ratepayers and others get an answer? Is it the case that he believes that it is now his role to answer all questions and only then at his discretion? Under his vision of accountability are the aldermen, the ratepayers' representatives:
- Redundant and surplus to operational requirements?
- A hangover from the past and antiquated and outmoded concept?
- Merely the authorisation mechanism for managerial income via their constituencies?
The Local Govt. Act 1993 cannot, should not, be construed in the way it appears to be. However, it is nonetheless antiquated and no longer fit for purpose.
That said, it is not management's role to reinvent/reimagine accountability with its own aspirations and ambitions prioritised.
Ray Norman 10-12-2015
Robert Dobrzynski me thinks that you protest too much ..... not to put too fine a point on it ... be very careful what you wish for .... or at least be a lot more careful ....
ReplyDelete