 |
| CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO ENLARGE |
If those predictions are 'on the money', as he'd claimed earlier, it is hard to see how a puny $80,000 "surplus" is anything to crow about nor might it represent anything that could be characterised as strong fiscal position.
Quite simply 'the amount' is entirely insignificant and it merely proves that the council operation can contain its spending to the available funds in the conscripted slush fund that is the Council's recurrent budget. Anything else would be incompetent!
In fact, this is a prime example of 'The Micawber Syndrome' relative to cost centres (councils!) where 'bliss' is defined by staying within budgetary constraints and 'hell' is invoked by exceeding them.
The first thing to be said about the fiscal reporting that GM Dobrzynski presents, and oversights, is that it is vacuous.
Moreover, 'the figures' appear to be designed to conceal the true dimension of the City of Launceston's operation rather than transparently reveal them. CLICK HERE TO GO TO THE REPORTING
It is rather interesting that this characterisation of the city's 'fiscal position' is presented by a General Manager alone without the endorsement of the Mayor and Aldermen. It also carries a latent message of its own – a somewhat poignant message. Why is it so?
Moreover, 'the figures' appear to be designed to conceal the true dimension of the City of Launceston's operation rather than transparently reveal them. CLICK HERE TO GO TO THE REPORTING
It is rather interesting that this characterisation of the city's 'fiscal position' is presented by a General Manager alone without the endorsement of the Mayor and Aldermen. It also carries a latent message of its own – a somewhat poignant message. Why is it so?
Launceston City Council has two chartered accountants among its aldermen, the Mayor being one. If accountability is something ratepayers are looking for there is not a lot they can rely upon in the apparently self serving assurances of a General Manager speaking alone and in total isolation from the ratepayers' representatives.
Annual General Meetings (AGM) have a purpose and for local government and their purpose is essentially no different to that of any, indeed all other corporate bodies.
Municipal AGMs are gatherings of the aldermen and ratepayers that are required by law to be held each calendar year. The main purpose of an AGM is to comply with legal requirements to:
- Present the audited accounts to be assessed in accord Council's Strategic Plan;
- Approve the audited accounts as being a true fiscal record of Council's operation relative to the year in question and the Council's Strategic Plan;
- Present and receive operational reports relative to the various components to the Council operation and assess them relative to Council's Strategic Plan;
- Allow management and aldermen to provide answers to ratepayer's questions placed on notice;
- Allow management and aldermen to provide answers to ratepayer's questions not placed on notice; and
- Transact any other General Business that the meeting may deem appropriate relative to the Council operation and its Strategic Plan.
Given the state of accounts now being presented to the meeting it is hard to imagine how ratepayers, or even aldermen, attending could approve the pared-down audited financial accounts as they are presented. That is unless they have additional privileged inside knowledge.
To the extent that this is the case, the current fiscal report does not represent anything that represents meaningful accountability to ratepayers. At least not for those who are only able to access the this summarised and abbreviated financial report.
Essentially, ratepayers at an AGM are asked to approve the council's accounts on trust given that the Auditor General has conducted a professional and independent audit. Presumably the Auditor General has access to more detailed records than those made available to ratepayers. Arguably, it's a matter of expediency in the end!
Nonetheless, with all the best intentions, auditors are looking at a different class of accountability, the minimum requirement level(?), where as 'the constituency' is more inclined to look for a multidimensional brand of accountability – and the evidence that their individual expectation have been delivered upon.
However, expediency or no, the formal requirement of those in attendance at the upcoming Launceston City Council AGM, according to its agenda, will not even be given the opportunity to formally approve the financial accounts. Given their scanty status it doesn't seem possible that the meeting could indeed do so – except on the Auditor General's and the General Manager's say so.
Importantly, there is no other opportunity to examine the accounts in search of 'evidence' except possibly by some drawn out 'Right To Information' application. This situation hardly equates with 'meaningful accountability'.
LAUNCESTON'S AGM'S CREDIBILITY
The advertising and marketing of Launceston's AGM calls into question its credibility, and its ability, to deliver on its purpose in a 21st C context.
There can be no argument that LCC's AGM ticks all the right boxes in regard to the statutory requirements put in place to ensure an AGM is credible.
It is just the case that these requirements were invoked in the 20th C and arguably they no longer fit the circumstances of the 21st C.
There are 20th C reports of Launceston's AGM that tell us that typically an AGM "pulled a crowd of 100 plus". How was that?
Back then invitations were sent by the Mayor to a network of ratepayers. As a marketing strategy it clearly worked compare to recently this 'marketing method' albeit that it might have been a marketing strategy that might well draw negative critiques to do with Machiavellianism.
Whatever, the comparisons are stark if we start to look at say last year's 2014 Launceston LCC AGM. That meeting apparently drew an attendance of as few as something like less than 10 attendees.
The 21st opportunities that could enable the achievement of purpose for the annual accountability reality check that in reality is an AGM's only purpose are there and applicable.
So called 'new technologies' can now facilitate that which not so long ago was totally out of reach. Digital communications are transforming corporate, social and cultural paradigms and attention needs to be paid to this.
The 21st C evolution of 'citizens' assemblies' is a case in point where their credibility is enhanced by current communication technologies. A Citizens' Assembly – sometimes invoked as a Citizens' Jury or Panel – is a body formed from the citizens of a modern state/constituency to deliberate on an issue or issues of importance.
The membership of a citizens' assembly is randomly selected, as is the case with juries. The purpose is to employ a cross-section of the public to study and consider the options available to a constituency on a question/s and/or to propose answers to the question/s through rational and reasoned discussion. Typically they use various methods of inquiry such as directly questioning experts.
The notion of Citizens’ Assemblies has at its core the objective/aim of reinstalling trust in the political process by the means of the citizenry's direct participation and inclusion in decision-making.
Even under the most vociferous of defences for the upcoming LCC's AGM – save for the Auditor's General's role and credibility – there a yawning credibility gap that can only be filled by the calling of another 'community meeting' where the constituency is given access to the kind of fiscal details available to shareholders of 'corporate entities' of all sizes.
Ray Norman Dec 6 2015
No comments:
Post a Comment