Corruption And Misconduct in Local Govt.

The context of corruption and misconduct

Misconduct and corrupt behaviours in local government can be perpetrated by the councillors, the leadership team of the council, the staff against the interests of the council, external parties outside of the council, and/or a combination of the four groups.2 The question of why does this happen and in what circumstances can

it happen, can be an imponderable and potentially unanswerable question. There can be multiple answers, with each of them specific to the organisational culture of the councils in which the behaviours have occurred, rather than having some type of forecasting tool which can predict incidences of corruption.

Gobert and Punch3 stated that there is no “single variable theory of [corruption and misconduct]”, but argued instead for a multi-causal explanation with contingent, situational factors playing an important role in individual cases.

The Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC 1998) reviewed the literature pertaining to corruption and misconduct, and stated that there are inherent risk factors which can: (1) enable or optimise corruption and misconduct and (2) aid in the perpetration of the corruption and misconduct.

Punch4 succinctly summarised the context of corruption and misconduct in the following way:

“The only responsibility of business is to make profit – illegally if necessary, and the business of business is crime.” ... CLICK HERE TO READ MORE

VANDALISM AT LAUNCESTON'S TOWN HALL

The scene being played out in Launceston's Civic Square right next to Town Hall could well be a comedy if it were not for the seriousness of the unfolding truths currently being revealed.

When put on the spot, Alderman Finlay revealed that there were indeed costs to be born by ratepayers consequent to the serial  bureaucratic bungling that resulted in the components of Stephen Walker's 1992 'TASMANIAN TABLEAU' being scattered about as if this civic sculpture was a bunch of toys. It was a gift to the city to commemorate THE EXAMINER's Sesquicentennial.

It is no trivial matter to toy with the moral rights of artists and authors under Australia  Copyright law. All too often when an artist/author has died bureaucrats get to think that nobody will be looking and that perhaps nobody cares. When they do care, and the ineptitude of the  bureaucratic insensitivity is on display, and is called out, the backroom whispering and denials eventual gets to be loud enough to hear, 

Alderman Finlay finally fessed up to there being a cost to sorting out the bungle albeit she did not challenge the advice provided to Council when council was asked if an  estimate of the costs involved in, and related to, addressing the issue of the artist’s/author’s moral rights being violated. The response on the record is that "there are no additional costs to the Civic Square project associated with these sculptures." This could never have been anything like the truth but without a whimper of any kind the alderpeople one and all let the flawed advice go without comment.  That's accountability in action for you.

Presumably, given that SECTION 65 requires the General Manager guarantee advice offered in Council's agendas that was good enough for all the alderpeople despite such advice defying every kind of logic. Alderman Finlay finally let the cat out of the bag when she advised that "that as the Civic Square redevelopment project is under budget any costs associated with the sculpture being reinstated as intended can be absorbed within the current budget". Alderman Finlay, or indeed any other alderperson or officer has provided any evidence for the project being "under budget" and in any event it is of no consequence as clearly there are "additional costs" albeit unspecified and confidential.

Clearly, Alderman Finlay's advice demonstrates that there are indeed additional unbudgeted costs associated with honouring the artist’s/author’s moral rights. These are the very rights that have been bureaucratically dismissed apparently and sidestepped as a consequence of Council’s seemingly dysfunctional planning processes. Moreover, this bureaucratic advice is contrary to the advice provided on the record in the  COUNCIL AGENDA Monday 4 June 2018  

After that, it appears to be the case that collectively Launceston's alderpeople's financial competence is open to be questioned given their implied apparent uncritical acceptance of operational budgets in the first instance and subsequently given their apparent predisposition to accept, and uncritically, self-serving managerial advice. 

When advice turns out to be flawed and less than “expert” in accord with SECTION 65 of the Local Govt. Act 1993 the city's alderpeople, ratepayers' representatives in a fiscal context, accountability falls to the alderpeople and there can be no ducking of the issue.

It is of some concern that it appears that in this and possibly other cases too, that the alderpeople do not recognise that there are indeed significant costs flowing to ratepayers as a consequence of ta bureaucratic blunder. Moreover,  a blunder that must result in the curtailment of expenditure elsewhere unless one subscribes to 'cargo cult delusions'. It appears as if the alderpeople collectively do not acknowledge that Council’s primary income source is the city’s ratepayers and in this instance at least, they are careless of that fact. In fact a regular meeting attender has reported that the term "ratepayer" is rarely if ever heard uttered around the 'Council table'.

Indeed, it seems that ratepayers can expect the alderpeople, by default, to represent Council's officers rather than them, the city's ratepayers. This discounts somewhat all those assertions to do with caring about and understanding your constituency’s aspirations and needs talked about at election time. The speculations, to do with what the actual cost of anything might be in fact and in a circumstance where ‘commercial-in-confidence’ just does not cut it and it leaves ratepayers hung out to dry paying more and more without any expectation of aldermanic accountability.

It is all the more worrying when ratepayers get to thinking about just how they are being represented on subcommittees etc., committees like the Audit Panel, in an atmosphere of diminishing trust in Council’s accountability. Interestingly, if one does not pay one's rates you are likely to be 'sold up'.

When the bleedingly obvious and writ large for all to see it may be worth taking note. Even if it is a bit late it might be as good a time as any to own up to the serial stuff-ups. By doing so Council would be demonstrating that it is up front about its caring for cultural producers’ moral rights and community values. It might also be a time when cultural producers are valued via a public apology to Stephen Walker’s family and the ‘arts community’. 

Hopefully Launceston's alderpeople might want to consider correcting the record in regard to the financial shenanigans going relative the serial stuff ups currently in evidence. all this would have a particular resonance in the light of THE EXAMINER’s smoothed over history published May 19  – https://www.examiner.com.au/story/5476664/tasmanian-artist-stephen-walkers-lasting-mark-in-civic-square/?cs=95#slide=3

CLICK HERE TO GO TO SOURCE

In a world of digital nomads, we will all be made homeless

The office-space empire WeWork was founded eight years ago in New York. It currently leases 240,000 sq metres of real estate in London alone, which reportedly makes it the city’s largest user of offices after the British government. The basic deal is simple enough: you can either pay to put your laptop wherever there is space, or stump up a little more for a more dependable desk or entire office – and, in either case, take advantage of the fact that, with operations in 20 countries, WeWork offers the chance to traverse the planet and temporarily set up shop in no end of locations.

Part of the WeWork idea, moreover, is that a place to toil is only part of what is on offer. As well as your workspace, there will be free beer on tap, regular yoga and pilates sessions, and more. ... CLICK HERE TO GO TO SOURCE

KENYA, THE TAMAR & PLASTIC

There are lessons here to be learnt and not backed away from. Launceston/Tasmania will no doubt do something tokenistic just like the city would by default look to someone, somewhere else, to solve or even deal with it almost any issue. "WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS" are demonstrably put in place to oversee the management of waste – and the wasting – rather than manage the ‘recovery of resources’. 

A tick to Kenya and not just on the plastics front. AND there are alderpeople in Launceston that need reminding just how they are are ducking the issues while collecting their rewards/stipends. 

One gets the feeling that in Kenya they might well be 'introduced to the lions' in order to get them to modify their expectations and behaviours. However there are two Sumatran tigers coming to a zoo nearby, Perhaps they could be introduced to the alderpeople?

This is a salutary read if you start to think and then hope for an expedient solution CLICK HERE TO GO TO THIS STORY.

Launceston is a SHIThole

This was once whispered as myth but now it is clearly the case that it is officially a part of Albert's marketing – he has nowhere else to go.

WATCH WITH INTEREST: Click Here  

NBN chief blames customers for network congestion

Online gamers have been called out by the head of the National Broadband Network as a major cause of congestion on the fixed wireless network.

NBN Co is "evaluating" slowing down or limiting downloads for users during peak times in order to overcome these fixed wireless congestion problems.

At a parliamentary hearing in Sydney this afternoon, NBN Co chief executive Bill Morrow said that the heavy users likely targeted by a fair use policy were "gamers predominantly".......

LINK: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-04/nbn-chief-blames-gamers-for-congestion/9832596

Pertinent Advice