ACT OF VANDALISM

City of Launceston COUNCIL AGENDA 

Monday 4 June 2018 3 7.1.1

Public Questions on Notice - Mr Ray Norman
14 May 2018 FILE NO: SF6381

AUTHOR: Anthea Rooney (Committee Clerk)

GENERAL MANAGER: Michael Stretton (General Manager)

QUESTIONS and RESPONSES: The following questions were submitted to Council in writing on 14 May 2018 by Mr Ray Norman and have been answered by Mr Dale Sinfield (Director Major Projects). Questions (typed as received):

• What arrangements have been made with the artist’s estate and/or agent in regard the apparent breaching of the artist’s moral rights under Australian Copyright Law?

Response: The redevelopment of Civic Square has necessitated the temporary relocation of the various elements of the Stephen Walker sculpture. The City of Launceston is holding ongoing discussions with the representative of Mr Stephen Walker's estate regarding the Civic Square sculptures and the representative has been consulted on the final arrangement the sculptures will take in the Square once redevelopment works are complete. The City of Launceston and the estate representative have enjoyed a constructive and collaborative relationship and have worked together on the final placement of the sculptures. Whilst the first stages of the Square redevelopment have been re-opened to the public, this does not represent the completion of works in these areas - catenary systems, lighting systems, heritage interpretation features, wayfinding and the final placement of the Walker sculptures are among several outstanding projects remaining at the time of writing. Many of these will be completed in coming days and weeks, with the redevelopment set for completion in late June 2018.

• This answer does not bath CoL in glory in that it defies credibility and circumvents the facts and the timeframes that are increasingly presenting themselves.

2. In fact, does Council acknowledge that its actions in regard to this work are in any way problematic in regard to the artist’s/author’s moral rights? Response: The Council believes that consultation with the representative of Mr Walker's estate on the final placement of the sculptures in the redeveloped Civic Square is an appropriate course of action.

• Again, this answer does not bath CoL in glory in that it fails to acknowledge that consultation with Stephen Walker’s estate did not start until after Council’s attention was drawn to the problem. The answer here attempts to confuse the facts matter and obfuscate. Actually, the question asks if there is acknowledgement of a mistake/problem and the answer circumvents the question.

3. What progress has been made in regard to resolving the matter of the breach of the artist’s moral rights if Council acknowledges that there is an issue to resolve?

Response: Please refer to response provided to Question 1.

• Again, the answer circumvents the question.

4. When and where was it publicised that council intended to rearrange the installation as a consequence of the Civic Square redevelopment?

Response: The redevelopment plans, public consultation programs and approval processes for the Civic Square redevelopment are matters of public record. Consultation culminated in a dedicated a four-week period for public comment in late 2016, followed by an advertised Development Application process in February 2017. The Development Application was approved at a public Council Meeting in March 2017. [Albeit belatedly] The representative of Mr Walker's estate has been consulted on the final arrangement the sculptures will take in the Square once redevelopment works are complete.

• Once more, this answer does not bath CoL in glory in that it fails to acknowledge that consultation with Stephen Walker’s estate did not start until after Council’s attention was drawn to the problem. Again, the answer attempts to obfuscate and confuse the facts matter. Nonetheless, the answer does make the point that the consultation process failed to draw the critique that the process was problematic and thus failed in the purpose that it might have had.

5. Who authorised the reconfiguration of this installation and under what circumstances did Council approve of that work now carried out?

Response: Please refer to response provided to Question 1.

• A copy book attempt to confuse the issue and obfuscate

6. Upon whose expert advice in accord with SECTION 65 of the Local Government Act did council approve the reconfiguration of Stephen Walker’s work “Tasmanian Tableau”?

Response: Please refer to response provided to Question 1.

• A copy book attempt to confuse the issue and obfuscate plus avoid the issues.

7. Has Council made an estimate of the costs involved in, and related to, addressing the issue of the artist’s/author’s moral rights being violated? Response: There are no additional costs to the Civic Square project associated with these sculptures.

• This cannot be the case and this answer defies credibility on the available evidence.

8. Will council undertake to formally apologise, and publicly, to Stephen Walker’s estate and family for its actions in regard to this matter?

Response: Please refer to response provided to Question 1.

• It is a formal public apology that is being requested not obfuscation and blame shifting

9. In regard to Stephen Walker’s other work located in Civic Square, “Rain Forest”(?), is it indeed the case that it will be relocated as a consequence of the Civic Square redevelopment?

Response: No, this sculpture will remain in situ.

• One clear and unambiguous answer thankfully.

10. If it is indeed proposed that this work is to be repositioned, has the artist‘s estate, and/or family been contacted?

Response: Please refer to response provided to Question 9.

11. If it is indeed proposed that this work is to be repositioned who has been contracted to carry out and/or supervise that work and upon whose expert advice is council relying in regard to this work?

Response: Please refer to response provided to Question 9.

From: Ray Norman <raynorman7250@bigpond.com>
Date: Monday, 28 May 2018 at 4:43 pm
Subject: FW: An act of vandalism.

PLEASE CIRCULATE

Around Launceston members of the arts community are raising a range of concerns in relation to Launceston Council’s redevelopment of Civic Square and other public spaces.

When approached by a ‘cultural activist’ in Civic Square after a Council meeting on Monday, ex-alderman Basil Fitch described the overall project as a “soulless concrete jungle that’s costing ratepayers far too much”. 

Mr Fitch went on to say, “and as for the green framed skeletons that I have seen, I cannot understand why this council wants to spend so much money turning Civic Square into some kind of dumbed down green mortuary. I think that it is a disgrace”.

However, the most contentious element is turning out to be the reconfiguration of Stephen Walker’s sculptural installation ‘Tasmanian Tableau’ that depicts the iconic Launceston thylacine and other important Tasmanian species. 

The artist, Stephen Walker AO, died in Tasmania in 2014 – See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Walker_(sculptor)

As a consequence of the redevelopment the ‘tableau’ has been dispersed and significantly reconfigured so as to nullify the work’s integrity and the artist’s intentions. Moreover, the planting of exotic European trees, along with pansies around the tableau is so insensitive, and so inappropriate as imply some kind of joke.

It turns out that all this amounts to a legal contravention of the artist’s moral rights. Many people in the arts community are aghast at the arrogance and hubris on display through council’s blatant disregard for proper process and its insensitivity to the cultural values invested in the installation.

To add insult to injury, the installation was a gift to the city by The Examiner Newspaper in celebration of an important milestone in the paper’s proud history, its sesquicentenary.

The late Stephen Walker AO is one of Australia’s most important and respected artist. In Tasmania, he is particularly famous for his commemorative civic works in bronze. 

The denigration of this artist’s work, and in this insensitive way, diminishes all Launcestonians in ways that should not go without being called out for what it is. Since the year 2000 the moral rights of authors, artists and cultural producers has been protected under copyright law.

The Tasmanian Tableau installation was much applauded when installed in 1992 and it has become something of an icon for the City of Launceston. Tourists and others can often be seen being photographed in front of it and it appears in social media internationally.

Mayor Albert van Zetten, and The Examiner’s editor Mark Baker, have been contacted for comment in regard to the apparent mistake but only the mayor has responded. Council is currently in touch with Stephen Walker’s widow and family in an attempt to arrive at an appropriate albeit belated outcome in respect to this work and another of Mr Walker’s works within the precinct.

On the evidence, Mayor van Zetten has found it difficult to understand what in fact are the implications of this apparent breach of the late artist’s moral rights. Coming to terms with the consequences of, and the cost of, the wrongdoing is something that is yet to come it seems.

Somewhat curiously, The Examiner has not bought into this matter and is disregarding its news value to Launceston’s residents and ratepayers.

Launceston Council’s Civic Square redevelopment is increasingly receiving unwelcomed criticism. Indeed, ratepayers are worrying about what impacts this revelation, plus components of other projects, are going to have upon their rates given the level of debt the council has taken on to fund them.

Currently, the most poignant evidence of hubris here being the barriers are down around the tableau component of the Civic Square development and for all intentions’ purposes that is a statement of the work being ‘finished’.  And, there sits Stephen Walker’s work with moral rights being blatantly trampled upon.

There is not the slightest hint of remorse or acknowledgement of any of this and there is no escaping the observation of council’s disregard.

The Tasmanian Ratepayer’s Association is starting to pay closer attention to the goings on in Civic Square. President Lionel Morrell said, “I understood that there was to be some sort of community consultation on this project and other city projects.”

Mr. Morrell went on to say that, “I may have missed that process but had there been a meaningful consultation process it is hard to see how this kind of concern would not have come up and therefore this outcome might have been avoided.”

Yet again it seems that ratepayers are being left to pay dearly for council’s mistakes and the apparent aldermanic disregard for residents’ and ratepayers’ aspirations and concerns. 

This time, for this element of the redevelopment, the bill is likely to be quite significant and yet again it seems that it will fall to ratepayers to pick it up.

END

Ray Norman on behalf of and in consultation with a Launceston based citizens group

For further information and clarification of the issue please contact

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

WEBsite: http://www.raynorman7250.blogspot.com

“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

Stephen Walker Tasmanian Tableau Repositioned by Launceston Council

These images were taken before the opening of Civic Square at the point that it was noticed that Stephen Walker’s (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Walker_(sculptor))Thyacine Diorama, A Tasmanian Tableau, in Civic Square was being reconfigured. It seems that this work may well contravene the artists ‘moral rights’ unless his estate has granted permission for the work and for it to continue to be attributed to Stephen Walker. 

It appears that such formal arrangements have not been made.

Launceston Council Civic Square $20K?, $40K?, $50K? Shock Stuff Up

28/5/2018

Who knows just how much this dumb stuffup in Civic Square is going to cost ratepayers – indeed what has it already cost them. On the face of it whatever the costs are it will not be peanuts given that there are:

• Costs involved in original and inappropriate positioning this Stephen Walker Sculpture "Tasmanian Tableau" and they will be substantial and they have come to nothing;
• Costs involved in deinstalling the work in preparation for reinstallation and they will be substantial;
• Costs involved in the reinstallation of the 'tableau' in accord with the artists/author's 'moral rights' and they will be substantial;
• The legal costs involved in seeking clarification of the artist/author's moral rights and that will be anybody's guess in regard to what those costs will be; and
• Then there are the public relations and travel costs involved in negotiating an appropriate outcome with the artist's family,  the Intellectual Property agents, etc.

Given that Council will not have anticipated the need to insure against this kind of outcome it seems that with a shrug of the shoulders these monies will most likely be found in the budget 'somewhere'. As sure a night follows day it will be the ratepayers who will be footing the bill either via their rate demands OR forgoing services elsewhere in the council's budget.

It is the role of the general manager guarantees to provide "expert advice" to aldermen in their deliberations and decision making. By what has been exposed by this outcome, the question hanging in the air is what advice was provided by whom to whom. Then again it seems the aldermen have not sought independent advice to verify their approval processes in this case – and as likely as not, none other either.

A meaningful community consultation process might well have alerted the decision makers, operational and governance, that there were risks to be navigated – but that didn't happen.

One alderman speaking off the record claimed not to know about this kind of copyright cum moral rights provision but that kind of defence is feeble to say the least. It is a bit like claiming not to know what larceny means.

What is required here is a public apology to the artist's family, the arts community and the residents and ratepayers of Launceston for both the reflected ignominy and the losses they'll surely suffer.  If justice is to be done after that, the aldermen should consider their position and possibly look for ways for the costs met from within the budget provided for aldermanic expenses.

Sadly this whole affair reflect badly on Launceston's aldermen as it is their representational role to ensure that this kind of outcome does not happen. It is time for a major rethink and a reality check!