Hello Michael,
For whatever reason, you are missing my point here. Quite simply, my expectation is that I receive, indeed everyone should receive, an automatic acknowledgement that my/their email has in fact reached its destination – forensic evidence if you like. That does not cost a single BRASSrazoo and any argument that you might put that it would could only be fallacious. Every email to Council should receive such acknowledgement and currently when they do not that tells the sender that the correspondence may not have been received and that it might/could well be ignored. Very poor marketing if nothing else!
To be absolutely clear, I DO NOT expect formal notifications but I do expect DIGITALacknowledgement given the ease in which it can be provided and without cost or any human intervention. Indeed, I expect it in compliance with the standards I experience daily elsewhere. Not to provide, that class of acknowledgement to ‘all incoming email traffic’ in 2021 is at the very least dysfunctional administration. There are harsher things that might be said.
I was advised by reception that the reason I did not get automatic acknowledgement was because my “email address was recognised” and the consequence was that it was deemed that council didn’t need to acknowledge it – and it wasn’t acknowledged. By any measure that is ‘discriminatory behaviour’ and moreover it is evidence of ‘filtering’. I’m relying upon the advice provided to me by reception and notably it matched your earlier advice to me. If I’m joining the wrong dots here all I can say is that they are your dots, and they are available, but of course it is legend that you are beyond reproach whenever you are challenged on anything.
In any event, if correspondence is significant, ultimately ‘apparent default bureaucratic disregard’ is counterproductive and ineffective administration. However, I do realise that I couldn’t possibly be making a valid critique given that such a thing is disallowed – and anyway I’m just a ratepayer.
In regard to your advice to me, you informed me that you/council were not maintaining a personal file of my correspondence but alternatively you advised that council is maintaining separate files. To me that is filtering but you might have another word for it but what’s done is what it is.
You also claimed that I do not receive discriminatory treatment, well that could be tested. In regard to me putting a first-hand witness in the frame, why would I expose them to your/council’s now legendary blatant ’rankism’ and the consequent ‘bureaucratic bully tactics’ they could expect? Why would I do that?
You will of course deny that in the hollow way that denials are flowing out of Canberra right now – rank pulling is rife. Apparently, by your reasoning, you cannot any longer prosecute a murder case unless the key witness, the victim, is around to testify. So be it! In any event, you have SECTION 62/2 to fall back on, and that cuts through all the accountability imperatives, and that in the end precludes me, or indeed anyone, from making a critical comment that might stick. So, I actually know where I stand, and where almost any ordinary ‘citizen’ stands!
In regard to Tracy’s ‘professional research qualifications’, they are what they are. The evidence for anyone in the employ of the QVMAG being a ‘polymath’ is just not there. If you care to contest that observation you could of course provide me with the relevant documentation. Especially, you could point me to the independently peer reviewed publications in regard to that proposition and a list that demonstrates the prevalence of ‘research expertise and outputs’ of anyone currently on staff for whom you might claim to have credentials as a polymath. Nevertheless, the institution does hold significant collections, clearly not always well managed on the evidence, and it is at the bottom of the hill upon which I live, and I contribute significantly financially to its existence, and have done so for 30 years now, and it is, in my case, a handy ‘cultural laboratory’, despite its lack of polymaths and its faltering governance and administration. I persist while others look elsewhere. .
So, despite all that I will continue to call out anything shonky that I experience or that my clients draw my attention to.
Regards,
Ray
Ray Norman
<zingHOUSEunlimited>
Delamere Crescent Trevallyn TAS. 7250
“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
https://raynormanadvocate.blogspot.com/
THE GM/CEO'S MESSAGE
From: Eve Gibbons <Eve.Gibbons@launceston.tas.gov.au>Subject: CEO Response RE: Council's Continued & Outrageous Discriminatory BehavioursDate: 5 March 2021 at 2:16:48 pm AEDTTo: Ray Norman <raynorman7250@bigpond.com>Cc: Mayor <Mayor@launceston.tas.gov.au>, Councillor Danny Gibson <Danny.Gibson@launceston.tas.gov.au>Dear Mr Norman,On behalf of City of Launceston CEO, Michael Stretton, please find below response to your email dated 4 March 2021.RE: Council's Continued & Outrageous Discriminatory BehavioursI refer to your correspondence of March 4, 2021, regarding a representation to a publicly advertised planning application, and your opinions on QVMAG.To be clear, I have never advised you that your e-mails are 'filtered and filed variously'.As a reminder, on 18 April 2019 I wrote to you advising that it would be necessary for the organisation to implement a communications protocol in respect to your written correspondence.Over the preceding 12 months (8/4/2018 to 8/4/2019) you had sent 1,156 e-mails to the Council.The Council received a further 1,131 e-mails from you across various e-mail addresses between 9/4/2019 - 9/4/2020.This significant workload needs to be managed which is why a communications protocol has been implemented.The Council services a population of over 68,000 people and we need to ensure that we are providing an equitable service to all.Given the consistent volume of e-mailed correspondence from you and the fact that we have a communications protocol in place for you, there will be occasions where your e-mails are not responded to, or when a response may take longer than the Council's 10 day Customer Charter service standard.The City of Launceston Customer Service Charter details our service standards. It applies to our customers who are any people or organisations that have dealings, alliances or partnerships with the City of Launceston, including the Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery, the Launceston Leisure and Aquatic Centre, University of Tasmania Stadium and the Launceston Visitor Information Centre. Please refer to the charter to understand what our customer service commitments are: https://www.launceston.tas.gov.au/ContactWhile the Council endeavours to provide formal notification of received representations as soon as practicable, this is not always an immediate process.In the case of the representation which you e-mailed on 4 March 2021, this will be processed and a notification that it has been received will be provided in due course — as is the case with all other representations the Council processes.Your claims of discrimination by the Council are disputed. Despite being requested to do so, you have not provided any evidence to support your allegation of discriminatory behaviour on the part of Council staff.I am not of the view that anything in your most recent e-mail demonstrates that discrimination has occurred.Turning to other matters in your correspondence, it is my considered view that Tracy Puklowski and the QVMAG staff have always endeavoured to respond to your research inquiries in an efficient and effective manner.Because of the high volume of inquiries it is not always possible to meet your customer service expectations simply due to workload management issues.Further, Tracy is a high qualified, experienced and respected professional. Your comments in respect to her expertise are factually incorrect.RegardsMichael
Chief Executive Officer
T 03 6323 3104 I www.launceston.tas.gov.au
Please consider the environment before printing this, or any other e-mail or document.________________________________________
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER
Information in this transmission is intended only for the person(s) to whom it is addressed and may contain privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying or dissemination of the information is unauthorised and you should delete/destroy all copies and notify the sender. No liability is accepted for any unauthorised use of the information contained in this transmission.
This disclaimer has been automatically added.
From: Ray Norman <raynorman7250@bigpond.com>
Date: Thursday, 4 March 2021 at 8:05 pm
To: Michael Stretton <Michael.Stretton@launceston.tas.gov.au>, Mayor <Mayor@launceston.tas.gov.au>, "Director of Local Govt. [Tas]" <localgovernment@dpac.tas.gov.au>, Councillor Danny Gibson <Danny.Gibson@launceston.tas.gov.au>
Cc: Minister for Local Govt <mark.shelton@parliament.tas.gov.au>
Subject: Council's Continued & Outrageous Discriminatory Behaviours RE eMAIL Correspondence
Dear Michael et al,
Today March 4 I emailed my representation RE: Development Application DA0695/2020 to ‘Contact Us’ as is required in order to have your email acknowledged and read. When I did NOT receive my acknowledgement, I called reception to seek an explanation. It took an inordinate amount of time for receptionist to get back to me as I waited on the phone – she was courteous and apologised profusely for the “long wait”.
It turns out that I was advised that:
- Because my email address was “recognised by Records” it was deemed that ‘it/I’ did not require acknowledgment;
- That ‘Records’, now, due to my inquiry, would forward my email to ‘Planning’ – apparently at their discretion; and
- I could expect correspondence from ‘Planning’ in due course.
All well and good, EXCEPT you have provided me with advice earlier that my email correspondence is ‘filtered and filed variously’ and presumably, and now given my experience today, at the discretion of Records staff.
So, on the evidence, I am receiving ‘discriminatory treatment’and moreover it is clear that you have made the determination that it be so – presumably on the authority of your ‘Delegated Powers’ and/or under the provisions of SECTION 62\2 if the Local Govt. Act. You may recall that last year I met with the Mayor and Deputy Mayor and discussed this issue among other things.
To call this out as being ‘outrageous discriminatory behaviour’ I submit fall well short of the mark but I imagine that you will get the gist of my outrage at the discovery that the discrimination persists. We have been here before!
I’ve noted for quite some time that I almost never receive an acknowledgment from correspondence with the City of Launceston. Whereas, I can rely upon receiving an acknowledgment from other institutions, government agencies, councils, etc. So, clearly this is a ‘Launceston issues’, and on the evidence to hand, something that you have initiated or are willing to tolerate.
For citizens to be unable to expect appropriate consideration is an intolerable situation that must be called out.
Apparently, on your advice/instruction Tracy Puklowski insists on filtering all my research inquiries to the QVMAG and typically with unsatisfactory outcomes given that she herself lacks the expertise to address them. This behaviour too has reached a level that is beyond reasonable and effective communication.
Of course, there is another explanation for all this. That would be dysfunctional and ineffectual bureaucratic processes and if that is the case the ball still falls in your court.
Whatever it is that is driving this situation my tolerance of it is now exhausted. I await your carefully considered response.
Yours sincerely
Ray Norman
Ray Norman
<zingHOUSEunlimited>
Delamere Crescent Trevallyn TAS. 7250
“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
No comments:
Post a Comment