Given the quote attributed to you, and reported in the Examiner I believe, and perhaps paraphrased ... that went “we (you ...Council?) do not answer questions at public meetings because people do not go out to meetings”. Given this, and from your position as general manager, I’m wondering how you, given SECTION 62, would you better provide for full, fair and frank accountability for Council, other than via a public meeting? Indeed:
- Do you believe that Launceston City Council is currently fully and functionally accountable to its constituents?
- Do you believe that all of Launceston City Council’s current mechanisms are sufficient to deliver full 21st C accountability that would stand the test of a full independent external operational audit?
- Do you believe that that there are 21st C methods as alternatives to ‘public meetings, and other current methods, to better deliver on accountability in Launceston?
- Do you believe that it is the Aldermen who are to be accountable or is it the entire council operation that must be accountable to constituents?
We are living in changing times and there are many newish initiatives coming to light claiming to be able to deliver more credible accountability. Are you able to point me towards an ‘accountability mechanism’ that you believe has merit? Furthermore, given what’s at risk at say the QVMAG, how do you imagine that an alternative ‘accountability model’ might be found and applied to that circumstance?
It seems to me that these questions are hanging in the air right now and that you are ideally placed to deal with them. I look forward to anything you might be able to offer looking forward.
Regards,
Ray
Ray Norman <zingHOUSEunlimited> PH: 03-6334 2176
EMAIL 1: raynorman7250@bigpond.com 40 Delamere Crescent Trevallyn TAS. 7250
WEBsite: http://www.raynorman7250.blogspot.com
“A body of men holding themselves accountable to nobody ought not to be trusted by anybody.”
Thomas Paine
CLICK HERE: http://www.launceston.tas.gov.au/lcc/index.php?c=69
No comments:
Post a Comment