Thank
you for the feedback on my submission. I’ve prepared an online communication
thread and I must point out that this matter is current and ongoing. SEE https://robynarcherreport7250.blogspot.com/
You
raise the issue of the relevance of my submission to the ‘public interest’ given
that I am not a public servant.
Given that:
- The documentation being sought is to do with,
reportedly, Launceston’s and by extension, the Tamar/Esk region’s ‘cultural
manifestations’, I have a legitimate interest in what the report
and its brief might have to say given its potential consequences. Also, given, that the
‘assessment’ must by definition touch everyone in the region’s
‘cultural identity’ in some way or another the exercise is
non-trivial and potentially contentious – thus bringing the public interest
into play;
- The documentation, apparently, is to do with
auditing and assessing the city’s/region’s ‘cultural realities’
and it has apparently ‘informed’ a subsequent
consultancy with the two consultancies speculatively costing City of Launceston (CoL) in excess of $100K plus towards putting in place a “cultural strategy” a process that is currently being
implemented albeit that the research for it is unfinished/ongoing at
ratepayer’s expense – thus bringing
the public interest into play;
- The documentation, to some extent focuses upon
the ‘Queen Victoria Museum & Art Gallery (QVMAG)’ as a cultural institution funded by the
CoL,
the State Govt. and a great many donors and sponsors who have ‘entrusted’
cultural property and funding to the operation with security and
cultural implications – thus
bringing the public interest into play;
- The QVMAG alone relies upon a ‘notional
conscripted levy’, and State Govt. line item funding, paid via
ratepayer’s and taxpayers to cover recurrent costs – the numbers being in the order of $4Million from ratepayers for QVMAG alone. In many
instances, close to, or over, 10%
of an individual rate demand
is directly attributable to the QVMAG and there is additional ‘Council
cultural expenditure’ – salaries,
maintenance, grants, etc. – that takes ‘cultural expenditure’
to somewhere between 10% and 20% of
CoL rate demands – thus bringing the
public interest into play;
- By any measure, item 4 demonstrates that CoL
ratepayers and Tasmanian taxpayers carry an unusual/significant ‘cultural
funding burden’ relevant to Ms Archer’s ‘investigations’ taking
the subsequent ongoing study into account as well – thus bringing the public interest
into play;
- Given the above, in the context of ‘cultural
tourism’, cultural strategies, their veracity, informed cultural
discourses and the ‘trickle down impacts’ of these
things have tangible and intangible economic and cultural impacts all of
which is non-trivial – thus bringing
the public interest into play;
- Given that ‘City Deal’ negotiations with
the Australian Govt. and between Infrastructure
Australia and CoL has a ‘cultural
strategy’ embedded within them and the consequent ongoing
infrastructure maintenance costs will have upon the cost and scope of ‘service
provision’ in the city/region is non-trivial – thus bringing the public interest into play;
- Given that Tasmanians and others – sponsors and donors – have over a
very long time, have in excess of $230Million
invested in the QVMAG’s collections, and have entrusted the security of,
and access to, ‘the collections’ to CoL, and who has not seen fit to put
an ‘expert governance mechanism’ in place, how and by whom
this ‘resource’ is governed and managed is non-trivial – thus bringing the public interest
into play;
- Given that the General Manager under SECTION 65 of the Local Govt. Act
1993 is required to guarantee the veracity/appropriateness of the ‘expert
advice’ Council makes determinations upon, public access to that
advice, in order to challenge and/or support a ‘deemed position’, and
in the context of a transparent and accountable discourse this brings the ‘public
interest’ into play.
- Given that a General Manager under the
provisions SECTION 62 of the
Local Govt. Act 1993 has sweeping powers to deem information to be ‘confidential’, and he/she does
so for the slightest administrative purpose, essentially to isolate and
insulate ‘the public’ from ‘internal bureaucratic stratagems’,
it runs counter to transparency and accountability in civic administration
– thus bringing the public interest
into play.
- When an appointed ‘Council Officer’
holds herself/himself as being only accountable to herself/himself, and
the matter involves ‘cultural identity’ relative to
‘public
administration’, clearly for all the reasons set out above, the
matter needs to be determined in the context of ‘the public’s legitimate
interest’.
I
have a long-standing research interest in the QVMAG and ‘the place’s’ as yet
untapped potential in the context of
‘community cultural development’, cultural tourism and more still.
Moreover, as a ratepayer, cultural producer and researcher, the city/region is
now my home of 30 plus years – it is also
my ‘laboratory’. Moreover, I have a built a career as a cultural
producer/researcher over quite a long time thus I find the proposition that I
might need to be a “public servant” – a
sanctioned bureaucrat – in order to even investigate a council’s operation
somewhat offensive.
I
may also be described as ‘an old person’ by a Councillor, with
the intended implication being that I have an excess of time to pursue matters
such as this – albeit that the insult was
in reference to another matter – which I’m sure you might begin to
understand the prejudiced context within which I pursue this matter and thus
far so unsuccessfully.
I look
forward to your response.
Yours
faithfully,
Ray
Norman
Ray Norman
<zingHOUSEunlimited>
The lifestyle design enterprise and research
network
PH: 03-6334 2176
EMAIL 1: raynorman7250@bigpond.com
40 Delamere Crescent Trevallyn TAS. 7250
WEBsites:
“A body of men holding themselves accountable to
nobody ought not to be trusted by anybody.” Thomas Paine
“The standard you walk past is the standard you
accept” David Morrison
From: "Ombudsman
(OHCC)" <Ombudsman@ombudsman.tas.gov.au>
Date: Friday, 8 March 2019 at 1:49 pm
To: "raynorman7250@bigpond.com"
<raynorman7250@bigpond.com>
Subject: Ombudsman Complaint 1903-049
Dear Mr Norman
We are in receipt
of your online complaint form which you described as a public interest
disclosure but appears to be about an application for assessed disclosure under
the Right to Information Act 2009 (RTI). It is unlikely that you
are making a public interest disclosure, unless you are an employee of council
or a state servant, but you do refer to an email concerning a request for
information in August 2018. There are specific time limits on requests for
review under the RTI legislation so it may well be that you are out of time.
Could you please
clarify what exactly it is you wish to complain about – is it that the Council
will not give you a copy of the report? Could you supply previous
correspondence between Council and you? You can send those documents via
email in reply to this message. We need more information so that we can
properly assess what, if any, action we can take in relation to your complaint.
I look forward to
hearing from you.
Yours sincerely
|
|
Clare Hopkins
Principal
Officer – Ombudsman Tasmania
p (03) 6166 4566
Level 6 NAB
House, 86 Collins St, Hobart, TAS 7000 | GPO Box 960 Hobart TAS 7001
Dear Mr Norman
|
I refer to your complaint and my email below. Could you please provide the additional information/clarification by Friday 15 March 2019 please? If I do not hear from you, I will assume that you do not wish to proceed.
Yours sincerely
| Clare Hopkins
Principal Officer – Ombudsman Tasmania
p (03) 6166 4566
Level 6 NAB House, 86 Collins St, Hobart, TAS 7000 | GPO Box 960 Hobart TAS 7001
|
From: "Ombudsman (OHCC)" <Ombudsman@ombudsman.tas.gov.au>
Date: Friday, 8 March 2019 at 1:49 pm
To: "raynorman7250@bigpond.com" <raynorman7250@bigpond.com>
Subject: Ombudsman Complaint 1903-049
To: "raynorman7250@bigpond.com" <raynorman7250@bigpond.com>
Subject: Ombudsman Complaint 1903-049
Dear Mr Norman
We are in receipt of your online complaint form which you described as a public interest disclosure but appears to be about an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (RTI). It is unlikely that you are making a public interest disclosure, unless you are an employee of council or a state servant, but you do refer to an email concerning a request for information in August 2018. There are specific time limits on requests for review under the RTI legislation so it may well be that you are out of time.
Could you please clarify what exactly it is you wish to complain about – is it that the Council will not give you a copy of the report? Could you supply previous correspondence between Council and you? You can send those documents via email in reply to this message. We need more information so that we can properly assess what, if any, action we can take in relation to your complaint.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Yours sincerely
|
No comments:
Post a Comment