OPEN LETTER: Director Local Govt Tasmania

Thank you for your correspondence in response to a series of sequenced correspondence with Launceston's General Manager (GM), your Minster and subsequently by extension to yourself as Director of Local Government. Along the way various misconceptions have become embedded in the correspondence that I  believe is worth the time to address.

Firstly, I am not at all surprised that you might have responded as you have and in a kind of a way it was anticipated – and indeed quite anticipatable. However: 

• That it appears as though you and the GM's correspondence might be characterized as 'patronising' is disappointing.

• That it appears that both yourself and the General Manager might regard me as some kind sole operator cum 'lone antagonist' is a serious misunderstanding (misrepresentation?) of the facts and contrary to the evidence.

• That it appears as though, speculatively at least, you might uphold a position where the advocacy of ideas and/or concepts plus the presentation of evidence contrary bureaucratically convenient might be stifled and/or summarily shut-down on the bureaucratic and discretionary whim of a GM is untenable.

• That it seems that a council should use and/or fund whatever mechanism of obfuscation to deflect criticism and/or suppress evidence of 'inconvenient truths' is counterproductive and inappropriate  if not irregular.

• That it seems that the numbers of emails that I have, or anyone might yet, direct to Council might be deemed by a GM as "unreasonable and/or inappropriate" is in one sense bemusing, in another inappropriate in itself and beyond that a denial of natural justice;

• That it is open to speculation that there is an inference from your stated position that drawing weaknesses and inadequacies; flaws, mistakes and inaccuracies;  maladministration and possible misdemeanors, to Council's attention for attention/consideration/action is unwarranted and unacceptable to say the very least;

• That speculatively at least, that as a 'public servant' one should attempt to mitigate against 'the public', and the likes of constituents/researchers such as myself, engaging in a legitimate critical discourse, albeit at times vigorous and robust, is in my view is untenable in the absence of truly transparent and functional mechanisms to hold Local Govt. to account at any level.

• That in Tasmania the lack of an independent local press means that constituencies are constrained in in initiating independent critical discourses and/or directly engaging in incisive and productive criticism and critique relative placescaping and placemaking [LINK 2] – the primary function of Local Govt.– is more than lamentable.

• That it appears on the evidence a GM, under the provisions of SECTIONS 62 & 65 of the Local Govt. Act, may functionally deem at her/his discretion that advice, that is any advice across the spectrum of human activity and understanding, is appropriately 'expert' is troubling.

That against this background in Tasmania, functionally, Communities of Ownership & Interest for the most part lack the necessary opportunities and mechanisms to hold a Council and/or its officers to account in a meaningful way, and it is concerning. Moreover, it is non-trivial that this be the case and the layer of governance that conscripts its recurrent funding from a constituency can shape it without functional accountability, let alone gain information except at the discretion of an unelected, unrepresentative 'manager'. 

That an unrepresentative 'council functionary' can summarily and blatantly discriminate against a constituent is unconscionable. That there is no 'code of conduct' disciplinary action that can be taken speaks somewhat loudly of the inadequacy of Local Govt. legislation.

However, as Gandhi said "Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes."

DPG