[printfriendly]

[author] [author_image timthumb=’on’]http://the-terrier.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/vault3.jpg[/author_image]Welcome to The Vault – this is where Bluestone will place all sorts of subscriber-access-only material. If you have something you would like to submit, please email us at editor@bluestonemagazine.com.au[author_info][/author_info] [/author]

By Carol Altmann

[box]Bluestone would like to acknowledge subscriber PT for funding the Freedom of Information application used for this piece.[/box]

[dropcap style=”font-size: 60px; color: #A02F2F;”] B[/dropcap]luestone subscribers will know that we cop quite a lot of flak for continuing to ask questions about the sacred cows of Warrnambool including Flagstaff Hill, Fun4Kids and the increasing secrecy and lack of transparency around how the Warrnambool City Council runs its affairs – but as long as there are huge gaps in the information, we will keep asking.

Like why is there no formal report on the 2015 Fun4Kids Festival that cost ratepayers $450,000 to run?

Bluestone has just uncovered this fact and it is staggering, irrespective of your views on Fun4Kids or whether it has picked up tourism gongs.

Anyone who has ever dealt with public funds will know that full disclosure on how that public money was spent and the results of that spending is standard procedure.

It’s called accountability.

Indeed I remember when working for the might of News Ltd that we were expected to account for every dollar we claimed when working on a story, right down to producing a receipt for a $10.50 pizza – after all, Rupert might be a very wealthy man, but he was still the boss.

Yet the Warrnambool City Council has spent almost half a million dollars of public money on an event that, until now, has always produced a full report on its budget and the festival results.

When we asked the council media manager for a copy of the 2015 Fun4Kids report, he said the key results of the festival had already been released to the media.

So, what was told to the media via the council’s media unit should be enough.

Well some journalists in Warrnambool might be happy to swallow the pre-chewed lines delivered by the council, but Bluestone is compelled to dive deeper.

So when the council told us that “about 15,000” people attended the 2015 festival and that 24% of these were from Melbourne and that they surveyed 1000 of these patrons for their views, we wanted to know more.

Can we have the full report? We asked.

Nothing was forthcoming, so we lodged a Freedom of Information asking for two things:

i) the report and/or documents prepared for the council relating to the financial results of the 2015 Fun4Kids festival

ii) the report and/or documents prepared for the council relating to the patronage, including any breakdowns or analysis on these figures.

[dropcap style=”font-size: 60px; color: #A02F2F;”] A[/dropcap]fter the obligatory 45-day wait, the council’s Freedom of Information officer Wendy Clark, who is also chief executive officer Bruce Anson’s personal assistant, came back with this jaw-dropping response:

“I have found no documents that meet the terms of your request…”

This means, we must assume, that there were no reports prepared for the council.

Ms Clark then attached two documents that, we must also assume, amount to the full documentation available on the results of Fun4Kids 2015.

One was a single budget line reference and the other was five paragraphs that included not one single figure, but plenty of motherhood statements like:

“The Fun4Kids Festival achieved a positive percentage increase in the metropolitan market, while maintaining regional attendances. This outcome is a key growth strategy for the festival moving forward.”

I don’t know about you, but whenever I read those last two words – “moving forward” – I know we are deep in the river of public relations spin and far from the shores of plain speaking.

[dropcap style=”font-size: 60px; color: #A02F2F;”] I[/dropcap]n a similar vein, you may remember the uproar that followed the sudden removal of a row of old tea tree along Pertobe Rd just before Christmas.

The trees were removed, we were told, after an arborist inspected them and found them to be unsafe due to infestation by a certain worm and cracking.

A Bluestone reader dared to ask more. In early January, she asked for a copy of the arborist’s report (or at least more detail) and whether the trees would be replaced.

She is still waiting for a reply, let alone any more information.

Such queries could normally be thrashed out  by elected councillors in general council business, but that, as we know, has been abolished and now councillors are timed for how long they talk, even though meetings were usually over within a couple of hours.

All councillors, not just some, should be demanding more, not less, transparency on behalf of ratepayers.

The fact they aren’t, and that this sort of “trust us” mentality is gripping the council, is of serious concern to anyone who remembers that it is the ratepayers who, just like Rupert, are the boss.

Find more in The Vault here…

 

Trees, transparency and the truth

Wilma Wright, FOI and more

The big shed schemozzle: we follow the money

…and more

The Vault – Carol Altmann 

What began as a simple question to the Warrnambool City Council about the removal of some trees has gone on to reveal a much deeper concern that strikes right at the heart of the public’s right to know.

The last 24 hours has confirmed that there is now a two-tier system in place: those people and media organisations who meet the council’s approval and those who don’t. Those who acquiesce will be accommodated and those who dare to dig deeper or question further will be ignored.

In a one-newspaper, regional city with close ties and connections, this is a deeply troubling attack on one of the fundamental parts of a democracy where people have a right to expect an open, transparent and accountable government on all levels. The media, including new media outlets like Bluestone Magazine, are critical to this expectation being met.

First, some brief background for those of you who may not be on Facebook or Twitter, which is where Bluestone revealed the removal of a row of well-established tea-tree from Pertobe Rd this week.

In the scheme of things this might be seen as a small story, but more than 6500 people saw our post and many reacted passionately, asking why the trees had been taken out and that they were saddened, disappointed and even horrified at the loss of this native vegetation.

The WCC issued a tweet to its followers after Bluestone had made public that the trees had been removed, saying: “Old tea trees removed along Pertobe Rd for safety following inspection by arborist. Replacements to be planted in autumn.”

Safety? Inspection by an arborist? We wanted to know more.

We emailed WCC communications officer Nick Higgins, Mayor Kylie Gaston and all the councillors to see if we could find out more detail.

Cr Brian Kelson said he was unaware of the removal of the trees, but questioned why the council’s guideline of only removing one-third of the height had not be applied. (note: an earlier version of this story said only Cr Gaston responded to our questions. Cr Kelson also responded.)

Mayor Gaston also responded and the relevant part of her email is here:

Leaving the death of the child in Bendigo to one side for a moment (we will get back to that tragedy), we than asked to see the arborist’s report that led to such a dramatic response for a row of worm-infected tea tree.

Mayor Gaston was on the road by this time, so we emailed media manager Mr Higgins yesterday – as is council protocol – and asked directly:

Three hours later, having obviously scoured our Facebook page to gauge public feedback on this issue, we received this reply at 5.26pm yesterday:

Hello Carol,

We will decline the invitation to have further input into your commentary.

Comments on your Facebook page which describe council staff as “environmental rapists” and “grubs” are offensive.

Actually, what was said on the page was this:

And this:

Passionate, yes. But no individual WCC staff member was named and certainly not defamed.

While we closely monitor our Facebook page to remove potentially defamatory comments and offensive language, we also believe members of the public who are prepared to express an opinion (however passionately) under their real names is what a free and robust discussion is all about.

We also find the council’s refusal to comment to us on this basis particularly interesting given a senior member of its own staff, tourism manager Peter Abbott, was this year exposed for attacking some councillors under a pseudonym to the local newspaper.

Here is our response to Mr Higgins:

Hello Nick,
It is not an invitation, but a request for information that should be in the public domain, given it was stated as the reason for the removal of the trees.
Just to be clear, are you saying the WCC is with holding this information because of a comment/s by a third party – under their own name/s – on our Facebook page that does not in any way attack an individual but perhaps, instead, expresses the clear frustration and disappointment at the decision to remove this vegetation?
Strong words, certainly, but we believe in allowing people who are brave enough to have a say publicly, under their own name, to actually have a say.
I wish to point out that Bluestone Magazine has made no such comments and has instead raised an issue that was brought to our attention by readers wanting to know why and how the decision was made to remove the tea tree. We also pondered why the council had not chosen to make this information public before the trees were removed, as is recommended in its own tree removal policy.
Despite this, you are saying that this information will not be supplied.
I can only ponder if the same restrictions applied to the Warrnambool Standard when, until recently, it regularly permitted such criticism and attacks on both council and councillors not only on social media, but on its website, including – as you know – comments written by WCC senior staff under pseudonyms.
If this is the chief executive’s ruling, then we will be lodging an FOI for this information, as is becoming the way that the council demands we do business when seeking documents that should and could be in the public domain.
Regards,
Carol

And Mr Higgins’ reply?

I am out of the office from 22/12/2015 05:15 PM until 11/01/2016 08:30 PM.
Hello,
I am on leave from December 23, returning January 11, 2016. If the matter is urgent call 0466 199 511.

We are still waiting for the arborist’s report, if in fact one exists. We are, pardon the pun, going out on a limb to say that it doesn’t.

But this is about more than trees.

This is also, in our view, about the council trying to shut down public criticism and scrutiny by scraping social media, and it’s about an attempt to “choke” an organisation like ours that cannot be “media managed”.

You, our followers, will know that this is not the first time. We have still not received answers to our questions on the Porter’s shed, or a copy of the report on the results of the 2015 Fun4Kids festival, or whether, indeed, if all of the missing Loch Ard lead ingots have ever been recovered.

But we will keep asking.

[box]The death of a child from a falling tree limb in Bendigo in 2013 led to a coronial inquiry where the council was found not liable. The tree, in that tragic case, was a 90 year old Grey Box gum and the branch that broke was an 18m long limb that dropped from 4 to 6 metres. The coroner set down eight recommendations about council tree management, including installing a computer based management system detailing what trees it owns, a risk assessment and maintenance schedule; a formalised tree inspection protocol; that all assessments be done by an experienced arborist; and that the assessments include the root system and canopy. There is no suggestion that all damaged trees be removed, but that pruning may also be an option. You can read the full report here. You can also read the WCC tree policy here.[/box]

Meanwhile, on the subject of public liability, click here to see a case that actually is just waiting to happen within the Warrnambool CBD.

Remember this shed?

It is the former home of Porter’s cabinetry and was bought in February this year by the Warrnambool City Council from its new owner, developer and former councillor Graeme Rodger, for $40,000.

As we reported exclusively at the time, there was a catch – the $40,000 shed would cost up to another $90,000 to remove and relocate, making it far from a bargain. No wonder the council tried to re-sell it at auction a month later, in March, but it was passed in for $20,000.

A few weeks later, in answer to questions from Cr Brian Kelson, council CEO Bruce Anson revealed the shed was destined for council land in west Warrnambool, where it would be placed on an existing concrete slab update: bitumen flooring. Building another concrete slab would, of course, add to the rising cost of this “bargain” shed.

As we write, the shed is still sitting on Graeme Rodger’s land off Wangoom Road while a housing estate takes shape around it.

But we can tell you this:

the council received a quote of $170,000 to pull apart, relocate and rebuild the shed in west Warrnambool which, added to the $40,000 it paid, would have made the total cost of this used shed $210,000.

it didn’t accept the quote.

instead, the council will pay Graeme Rodger $63,000 to pull apart and relocate the shed. This is shaping up as a great result for Mr Rodger, who will now receive more than $100,000 for a shed that nobody else wanted. Now that is a deal!

the attempted auction of the shed through Brian O’Halloran & Co, including a newspaper advertisement promoting its sale, was blamed on a breakdown in internal council communications.

the shed is due to be moved early next year.

One question which remains is how much the shed will cost to reconstruct and refit at its new location. We will get back to you.

 

 

By Carol Altmann

[dropcap style=”font-size: 60px; color: #A02F2F;”] T [/dropcap]his is a tale of two, century-old, sister ships with two very different fortunes: one is about to undergo a million dollar restoration in Tasmania, while the other is being scrapped at Flagstaff Hill in Warrnambool.

The Rowitta and the Cartela are both wooden steamer ferries built in Hobart by Purdon & Featherstone, with the Rowitta the older of the pair, being built in 1909, followed by the Cartela in 1912.

They are now among only a handful of river steamers left in Australia and generate the sort of excitement among wooden boat enthusiasts that befit their rarity.

In the case of the Cartela, which has been converted from steam to diesel but has never been out of service, that excitement is only building.

A dedicated band of volunteers formed the Cartela Restoration Project Trust that lobbied for years to secure funding to restore the ferry to its original state, including its original 1912 steam engine. The project has come to fruition and, as of August last year, the Cartela restoration has been the centrepiece of the revitalisation of the port of Franklin, in the Huon Valley, as the home of wooden boat building.

For the Rowitta however, despite being one of the oldest vessels in the collection at the Flagstaff Hill Maritime Village, it is the end of the road.

[dropcap style=”font-size: 60px; color: #A02F2F;”] H [/dropcap]aving been brought to the fledgling Flagstaff Hill back in the early 1970s as a hull, the Rowitta – which has also been known over its life as the Sorrento and Tarkarri – was the focus of a major restoration in 1989 under master boat builder, the late Ron Stewart, who’s son, Garry Stewart, continues the craft in Port Fairy today.

The Rowitta became a jewel in Flagstaff Hill’s crown, both as a popular venue for weddings, an educational tool for students and as a historic tourist attraction.

Tasmanian Irene Atkins wrote about her visit to Flagstaff Hill in 1998 and the thrill of seeing the boat she remembered from her childhood in Launceston being fully restored and taking pride of place on the lake.

“The first thing I said was ‘You have got the right colours’. They replied that they had gone down several coats of paint to establish that information,” she wrote in ‘On the Tide‘.

One of the people to show Irene around that day was boat builder Jeff McMurrich who is still the main boat builder at Flagstaff Hill and who, in 2008, gave a prescient interview to the ABC’s Jeremy Lee in which he warned that the Rowitta was in need of significant restoration work within 10 years, or it may not survive.

Sitting permanently in fresh water rotted the hull and required the Rowitta to be drydocked for proper repairs, which was difficult because it was part of the village’s Shipwrecked sound and light show *.

Instead, as Jeff explained, he did what he could with the “shoestring” budget Flagstaff Hill had to spend on such things. It was, he said, a case of “patching” rather than preventative maintenance – and this could only work for so long.

[dropcap style=”font-size: 60px; color: #A02F2F;”] D [/dropcap]espite these dire warnings, the 100th birthday of the Rowitta in 2009 was met with cheerful optimism by Flagstaff Hill, with manager Peter Abbott telling the local newspaper that the ship was still a popular drawcard.

“It’s a great venue for many types of functions and its also part of our sound and light show so the Rowitta’s definitely got plenty of years left in her yet,” he said.

In fact the boat would not see out another decade.

Faced with mounting losses at Flagstaff Hill, the Warrnambool City Council decided a couple of years ago to discontinue all maintenance of the Rowitta, which sealed her fate.

Alongside this decision has been a subtle reconfiguring of Rowitta’s place in the Flagstaff Hill story.

No longer is the ship historic, but referred to by Flagstaff Hill in its correspondence as a “replica”.

Similarly, the ship’s story is no longer considered relevant to the village, yet the South Australian built boat, the Reginald M, which arrived at Flagstaff Hill at about the same time, is.

The Rowitta’s transition from treasure to trash is perhaps best captured in this line from the council’s February 15 meeting:

“Rowitta is a replica ship and deemed as surplus to the future of FHMV. Her removal will allow our limited wooden boat repair resources to focus on our real heritage vessels.”

Work on removing parts of the ship has already begun.

*The consolidation of the wooden boat fleet is part of a $3 million upgrade of Flagstaff Hill to start later this year, including a $2 million upgrade of the sound and light show.

[box]We asked former Flagstaff Hill director PETER RONALD, now living in Tasmania, for his view on the destruction of the Rowitta. Read his exclusive analysis piece here. Bluestone would also like to thank the Launceston Library for its assistance with the history of the Rowitta.[/box]

[button link=”http://the-terrier.com.au/subscribe-2/” type=”icon” icon=”heart” newwindow=”yes”]Bluestone needs at least 500 subscribers in 2015. Please support independent media, and subscribe here.[/button]

You might also enjoy…

 

 Little old shoe leads to a humble war hero

Unearthed: how the Warrnambool cemetery works

A fence full of happy souls at Tyrendarra: the ‘shoe fence’

Montgomery buys a slice of ‘Motang’ history