newDEMOCRACY NEWS ONLINE NOW

CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO ENLARGE

Click here to go to the newsletter

Compare & Contrast Accountabilities

SEARCH: local government accountability framework

Click here to go the site copied above

Accountability is understood and practiced differently throughout Australia while in Tasmania the Local Govt Act delivers extraordinary powers and authority to 'management' that challenges, diminishes even, the accountability of elected members. As Council amalgamations are currently being actively considered it is time to do some comparisons in a search for 21st Century Accountability.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1993 - SECT 62

62. Functions and powers of general manager


      (1) The general manager has the following functions:

(a) to implement the policies, plans and programs of the council;
(b) to implement the decisions of the council;
(c) to be responsible for the day-to-day operations and affairs of the council;
(d) to provide advice and reports to the council on the exercise and performance of its powers and functions and any other matter requested by the council;
(e) to assist the council in the preparation of the strategic plan, annual plan, annual report and assessment of the council's performance against the plans;
(f) to coordinate proposals for the development of objectives, policies and programs for the consideration of the council;
(g) to liaise with the mayor on the affairs of the council and the performance of its functions;
(h) to manage the resources and assets of the council;
(i) to perform any other function the council decides.

      (2) The general manager may do anything necessary or convenient to perform his or her functions under this or any other Act.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1993 - SECT 65

65. Qualified persons


      (1) A general manager must ensure that any advice, information or recommendation given to the council or a council committee is given by a person who has the qualifications or experience necessary to give such advice, information or recommendation.
      (2) A council or council committee is not to decide on any matter which requires the advice of a qualified person without considering such advice unless the general manager certifies in writing that such advice was obtained and taken into account in providing general advice to the council or council committee.
      (3) .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 
      (4) .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

Citizens Juries – Leadership for a democracy

Tuesday 9 June 2015 8:05PM 

CLINK HERE TO MAKE THE LINK

 How would you like to actively participate shaping government policies, not just indirectly through your vote? Citizen juries allow just that. State and local governments have started to use citizen juries to address issues like infrastructure, budgeting or reforming the electoral system. These participatory democracy projects could radically alter the way all tiers of Australian governments make decisions. For the better … or worse?

Citizen juries - leadership for a new democracy ... State and local governments have started to use citizen juries to address issues like infrastructure, budgeting or reforming the electoral system.

Forget democracy, we need a new way to govern

Forget democracy, we need a new way to govern 

Date April 23, 2014 Luca Belgiorno-Nettis SMH  

"Ten years ago, in 2004, I [Luca Belgion-Nettis] decided to jump off the merry-go-round of political party fund-raisers. I found both the rubber chicken and the political offering equally unappetising. My Liberal and Labor party hosts, on the other hand, seemed perfectly articulate and competent. 

Yet for me, they came across as salesmen more than statesmen. When I asked once whether there might be a better game plan, my host’s retort was Winston Churchill’s: “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." 

Churchill damns with a challenge: “that have been tried”. It’s probably true that, in the modern era, other forms of government have failed, but I asked myself, why stop there? If the actual work of politicians is to negotiate our differences and facilitate consensus, then I think, today, they are failing us miserably. 

But it's not their fault. They’re not "bad people" – they are simply responding intelligently [as does the voter] to an adversarial political framework that discourages dialogue and consensus. 

The main engine of our political framework is the election contest; fund-raising is just a necessary subset. The core problem, in my view, is not fund-raising. For as long as there are elections, campaigns will need to be funded, with private and/or public money. The discussions and legislation constraining fund-raising and influence peddling are crucial within the current framework; but why are we not addressing the adversarial core? " 

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/forget-democracy-we-need-a-new-way-to-govern-20140422-zqxuv.html

FROM CANADA: Citizen Juries, Independence and Democracy

Let citizen juries bring independence and democracy to the CBC 
By Simon Threlkeld in Opinion, Politics | October 14th 2015 ....  "The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) is vital to Canadian culture, democracy and freedom. It should be brought fully out from under the thumb of the prime minister and his or her party.

Although polls show most Canadians oppose funding cuts to the CBC, Stephen Harper has cut the CBC’s annual budget by $115 million since 2012. The CBC has announced it must sell its buildings across Canada to raise money. If Harper is re-elected, it will be a disaster for the CBC.

We need the CBC to hold the powerful to account, including the prime minister and his or her party, exposing falsehood, demagoguery, incompetence and the abuse of power. It is undemocratic, and even ludicrous, for the very politicians the CBC is supposed to be holding to account to be choosing the CBC’s leadership— and to have the power to cut its funding, or even shut it down and sell it to the private sector. 

A classical fix 

The CBC needs full independence from the prime minister, politicians and political parties, as well as from other powerful interests. The CBC’s board and president have always been chosen by the prime minister, overwhelmingly on a patronage basis for those who have assisted the sitting government. Stephen Harper has, unsurprisingly, stacked these offices with Conservative appointments. 

The only way to end the patronage problem at the CBC is for the prime minister and politicians to be removed from the selection process. 

Classical Athens sheds light on how this can be done in a highly democratic way"..... Click here to read more

DEMOCRATIC NETWORKS FOR A MORE INCLUSIVE FUTURE

DEMOCRACY21TASMANIAtakes its lead from the newDEMOCRACY Foundation  and initially D21Tis looking at Local Government in Tasmania. Currently in Tasmania interest is growing in how local governance in particular can be delivered and deliver better outcomes. 

England's Magna Carta is a touchstone for democracy. It devolved power from an absolute monarch to the subjects of the realm. It's an model treaty stuck between a monarch and his subjects and in all its parts it has become a measure for the ways the realm and the government of the day is governed. 

This year, on the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta and its time for complementary measures to reflect the aspirations of constituencies and democratic thinkers in a 21st Century context. 

The newDEMOCRACY Foundation thinks that its time to explore the concept of a complementary 'house' of randomly selected people - A Citizens' Senate. In Tasmania a totally reimagined mode of 'Local Govt',  an ancillary component of 'council', needs to be trialled in order to deliver a more credible, more accountable, and more inclusive, level of governance for the State. 

The thinking might be wrong but that’s why a fair method for studying such innovations, alongside any others, needs to be put  to a Community Forum in some form and let the 'Forum' spend some months deliberating the measures that might be put in place. 

The newDEMOCRACY Foundation uses the Irish Constitutional Convention of 2013 as a precedent for moving the discourse forward. 

The Irish had a mix of everyday people selected by lot (as in a jury) together with politicians - two thirds/one third. 

In Tasmania, a similar mix could be assembled to consider: ‘How can we govern ourselves better at a local level?’ and report back to Parliament. 

In order to be inclusive submissions should come from all and sundry on how to improve local government in Tasmania. 

Taking the cue from the newDEMOCRACY Foundation, "democracy is more than ‘the vote’; it’s a way of organising ourselves, for no other reason than for ourselves."

WATCH THIS SPACE

This site has been devised to facilitate a more inclusive discourse relative to changing paradigms in governance and democracy across the social, cultural and political spectrums in Tasmania in a 21st Century context.

DEMOCRACY21TASMAINA takes its inspiration from the work of the newDEMOCRACY Foundation .... http://newdemocracy.com.au/