It is concerning that accountability gets such a poor level of commitment in many governance structures relevant to musingplaces. Oftentimes the distinction between governance and management is fundamentally blurred with the outcomes being dubious accountability to the constituency that invest in them. Questions, to do with appropriate dividends – fiscal, social and cultural – are too often headed off. Possibly, that’s the legacy we are destined to bear until someone sees the prospect of change and embraces it towards winning better outcomes for the governance of musingplaces in a general way and within changing paradigms.
Arguably, it is time to seriously consider the prospect of change and specifically change that challenges the comfortable albeit diminishing values invested in the status quo. Oftentimes, it seems that incumbent ‘governors’ just do not want to consider lifting their game when the comfortable defence of the status quo is close at hand. Nonetheless, the status quo is just no longer a viable option in the unavoidable ‘change paradigm’ musingplaces currently live and operate within.
Interestingly, by way of example, if we look at the City of Melbourne’s willingness to include rather than exclude its constituency via ‘thenew democracy paradigm’ there seems to be a light at the end of the tunnel. That is if you think the outcomes in Melbourne and elsewhere as having any veracity at all in contrast to the status quo and that anyone at all will take the time to look at the options and opportunities that are there to be, and are currently being explored.
It’s just the case that there is no real reason to think that musingplace governance is beyond the reach of criticism and critique. Incumbent governing bodies are predisposed to advance that idea rather than embrace change and never more so than within cultural institutions.
If change is not embraced, it’ll be Tasmania’s citizenry, its taxpayers and ratepayers, who’ll pay ever so dearly – and it all be so needlessly. It’s not as if resistance to change was not ever in prospect. Governing bodies are typically inclined to insulate and isolate themselves from critical enquiry given that they are often populated with a voluntary membership. Safety is seen in conservatism.
When will accountability be given any substance and importance in musingplaces governance?
When one offends it is usual to be punished. However, in the case of public musingplaces it’s not the executive who’ll bear the punishment. Typically, they’ll continue to savour the spoils and largess of their office and they have a vested interest in continuing to do so – and likewise in sustaining the status quo.
Getting serious matters of concern in regard to a musingplace’s accountability on the agenda is near to impossible. By-and-large criticism and critique goes unacknowledged and/or uncontested. So one can see well enough the level of resistance encountered when ‘mere constituents’ try to open a productive dialogue that is an exchange of views rather than being the recipients of management's self-serving wisdom.
People wish to be participants in their musingplaces governance and they do not wish to be caught up in polarised in unproductive adversarial (lose-lose) contests.
The evidence in support of all this is compelling if we look at the 'Melbourne Experience' SEE http://participate.melbourne.vic.gov.au/projects/10yearplan/
As is discernible in Melbourne, trusted outcomes are achieved when leadership allows constituents to participate in their governance. This was achieved via randomly selected citizens deliberating and handing down a determination based on the evidence before them. It works in our courts with juries and only those who do not respect the notion of justice would deny that it does – albeit not always flawlessly.
It may or may not be well known that Melbourne City Council exposed itself to this kind of scrutiny with apparently positive outcomes within the Melbourne community and internationally – on the evidence. There is reference a link here to provide some enlightenment of those who have not had the opportunity to become acquainted with Melbourne’s initiative. SEE http://www.newdemocracy.com.au/our-work/item/219-city-of-melbourne-people-s-panel
Albert Einstein reminded us that “In matters of truth and justice, there is no difference between large and small problems, for issues concerning the treatment of people are all the same.”
Arguably, it is time to seriously consider the prospect of change and specifically change that challenges the comfortable albeit diminishing values invested in the status quo. Oftentimes, it seems that incumbent ‘governors’ just do not want to consider lifting their game when the comfortable defence of the status quo is close at hand. Nonetheless, the status quo is just no longer a viable option in the unavoidable ‘change paradigm’ musingplaces currently live and operate within.
Interestingly, by way of example, if we look at the City of Melbourne’s willingness to include rather than exclude its constituency via ‘thenew democracy paradigm’ there seems to be a light at the end of the tunnel. That is if you think the outcomes in Melbourne and elsewhere as having any veracity at all in contrast to the status quo and that anyone at all will take the time to look at the options and opportunities that are there to be, and are currently being explored.
It’s just the case that there is no real reason to think that musingplace governance is beyond the reach of criticism and critique. Incumbent governing bodies are predisposed to advance that idea rather than embrace change and never more so than within cultural institutions.
If change is not embraced, it’ll be Tasmania’s citizenry, its taxpayers and ratepayers, who’ll pay ever so dearly – and it all be so needlessly. It’s not as if resistance to change was not ever in prospect. Governing bodies are typically inclined to insulate and isolate themselves from critical enquiry given that they are often populated with a voluntary membership. Safety is seen in conservatism.
When will accountability be given any substance and importance in musingplaces governance?
When one offends it is usual to be punished. However, in the case of public musingplaces it’s not the executive who’ll bear the punishment. Typically, they’ll continue to savour the spoils and largess of their office and they have a vested interest in continuing to do so – and likewise in sustaining the status quo.
Getting serious matters of concern in regard to a musingplace’s accountability on the agenda is near to impossible. By-and-large criticism and critique goes unacknowledged and/or uncontested. So one can see well enough the level of resistance encountered when ‘mere constituents’ try to open a productive dialogue that is an exchange of views rather than being the recipients of management's self-serving wisdom.
People wish to be participants in their musingplaces governance and they do not wish to be caught up in polarised in unproductive adversarial (lose-lose) contests.
The evidence in support of all this is compelling if we look at the 'Melbourne Experience' SEE http://participate.melbourne.vic.gov.au/projects/10yearplan/
As is discernible in Melbourne, trusted outcomes are achieved when leadership allows constituents to participate in their governance. This was achieved via randomly selected citizens deliberating and handing down a determination based on the evidence before them. It works in our courts with juries and only those who do not respect the notion of justice would deny that it does – albeit not always flawlessly.
It may or may not be well known that Melbourne City Council exposed itself to this kind of scrutiny with apparently positive outcomes within the Melbourne community and internationally – on the evidence. There is reference a link here to provide some enlightenment of those who have not had the opportunity to become acquainted with Melbourne’s initiative. SEE http://www.newdemocracy.com.au/our-work/item/219-city-of-melbourne-people-s-panel
Albert Einstein reminded us that “In matters of truth and justice, there is no difference between large and small problems, for issues concerning the treatment of people are all the same.”
CONTENT:
No comments:
Post a Comment