Claims of cover-up at Sydney Council

“Clover Moore should come clean”, Andrew Woodhouse, president of the Potts Point and Kings Cross Heritage Conservation Society, said today after claiming a cover-up at Sydney Council.

His group made a submission to council’s Cultural and Community Services Committee meeting, item 3, last night, 7th February, 2011, regarding overuse of flag poles and banners on city streets to promote a children’s show, Mary Poppins. The show’s producers, the Disney Corporation, seeks over $100,000 sponsorship, and requests ratepayers forego this revenue.

This will mean loss of revenues from city venues, cost of promotions in the public domain, provision of marketing and promotional support, banner sponsorship and the involvement of the Lord Mayor in the event.

See further below for Mr Woodhouse’s submission/s opposing the losses of revenue.
Links to council background notes: http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/Council/documents/meetings/2011/Commi...

http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/Council/documents/meetings/2011/Commi...

http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/Council/documents/meetings/2011/Commi...

http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/Council/documents/meetings/2011/Commi...

However, the background report notes “support of the City has been requested for the event. This includes … the involvement of the Lord Mayor … . Details of the proposed sponsorship package are at Confidential Attachment C.”
Ref: point 5, page 3 of 5 http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/Council/documents/meetings/2011/Commi...

We have requested Attachment C but have received no reply and have now lodged an FOI-style application.

“We find it incredible that Clover Moore has publicly proclaimed the need to improve what she labelled “NSW’s poor record on public access to information ”after an Ombudsman’s Freedom of Information (FOI) review uncovered what she called “a culture of secrecy in the NSW public service, supported by a lack of political will for change.”

“Open government is essential for a healthy democracy”, she said in 2009.

[Source: Clover Moore’s State News newsletter no. 54, April 2009, page 1 “Your right to know” http://www.clovermoore.com/main/page/2108.pdf ]

“Now she wants complete secrecy over her involvement with this scheme, which we reasonably suspect will promote her using our money,“ Woodhouse says.

“She is seeking to hide the truth. Who benefits from this?

“Ratepayers are entitled to know and see the money trail,” Woodhouse says before any approval for this expensive scheme is given next week.

Claims by Disney it needs this sponsorship are unfounded, with the group stating it is “the largest media and entertainment conglomerate in the world in terms of revenue” with an annual revenue of US $35 billion.

sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Walt_Disney_Company
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walt_Disney

Council claims that this sponsorship promotes Sydney or provide revenue to other businesses are irrelevant: the show, aimed is at 7-13 year olds, is going ahead anyway.

“This proposed arrangement is no more than gift to a global conglomerate’s bottom line in return for favours, which we are not allowed to know about, and which promote Clover Moore.

“Surely, a council with nothing to fear has nothing to hide?” asks Woodhouse.
The matter will be dealt with by council at its full council meeting next Monday.

Andrew Woodhouse
President - Potts Point and King Cross Heritage Conservation Society
Saving our past for the future
Ph 0415 949 506

SUBMISSSION TO COUNCIL 7.2.11

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: heritageandconservation@hotmail.com
To: heritageandconservation@hotmail.com
Subject: Cultural and Community Committee meeting 7.2.11 item 3 Mary Poppins Producers' business subsidy - objections
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 11:52:24 +1100

See photos attached:

Image 1 DSCN0553 Taylor Square: 35 poles within a 20 metre radius

Image 2 DSCN0561 Kings Cross: 25 poles within a 20 metre radius

Image 3 DSCN0563 William Street looking east: 56 poles counted within 600 metres, from Darlinghurst Road to College Street

Iamge 4 DSCN0567 William Street looking east: "flagism"

City of Sydney Cultural and Community Committee meeting 7.2.11

Item 3 Mary Poppins Disney Commercial production - business subsidy

We object to this proposal on the following grounds;

1. There are already too many banners in Sydney CBD and in Heritage Streetscapes and in Heritage Conservation Areas - they have become urban blight - see photos attached.

2. Such installations and increased use of over-sized flags are counter to ss 4.1 (ii) and (iii)* of the City of Sydney Council’s Heritage Development Control Plan and do not enhance their Heritage Conservation Area, blocking views to and from heritage-listed building and streetscapes. * see page 22 of 91: http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/Development/documents/PlansAndPolicie...

3. When Clover Moore’s council took office in 2004 it announced that such commercialisation of the public domain was unacceptable. Guidelines were created to stop this practice. This proposal counters those public comments and council seems to have reversed its public policy, a policy which should be reinstated.

4. The Disney Corporation does not need such subsidies: it is a massive, highly profitable, world-wide global media organisation and boasts it “the largest media and entertainment conglomerate in the world in terms of revenue” source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Walt_Disney_Company

5. There is no justification why ratepayers, who already pay rates from their hard-earned savings, should forego lost revenues of over $100,000: money that could be better used to conserve our heritage.

6. The background report is inadequate: the recommendation is not supported by any documentation showing how the Disney Corporation’s claim fits within guidelines listed on council’s website in relation its status as a community or non-profit organisation. See: http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/banners/ and http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/banners/documents/3289_DE14_rate_card...

The business subsidy proposed is not warranted or justified.

7. The evaluation assessment, Attachment A, is fundamentally flawed. Such a proposal doesn’t make Sydney more “innovative”:

(1) flags as ads are not new, with most commercial enterprises paying for their own ads,

(2) the production show only caters to a small proportion of the public, children aged 7-12: its exploits the vulnerable for money. There are ethical considerations. Details about expected visitation are unknown or merely conjecture. In any event, they are not released to those paying for these ads, the public,

(3) other commercial sectors' profitability is not hinged on ratepayers paying for these flag ads. Any benefits to other commercial sectors would remain if the ads were paid by the producers, not ratepayers in Potts Point or Zetland for example, (3) the production may be “creative”, but sponsoring ads is not: rejecting this claim does not make Sydney less “creative”,

(4) securing the event is not hinged on the public paying for producers’ ads. Ads and ticket prices are factored into production costs,

(5) ads in Melbourne newspapers did not highlight Melbourne council as claimed. Our enquiries suggest banner ads on streets in Melbourne were (a) half the size of those proposed for Sydney, and (b) paid by producers.

(6) such ads for Sydney do not “contribute to the creative fabric of Sydney” as claimed. Creative energy can be activated and achieved by the City of Sydney Council spending over $100,000 in other ways such as a permanent sculpture or assisting in finding or providing a permanent home for the Gordon Syron Art Collection, now under threat. That contributes to our cultural creativity: flagism does not.

8. All the crucial details about which members of the public should be able to comment - Attachments B & C - are deliberately hidden, and without any justification. What does the proposed sponsorship package Attachment C, marked “ confidential”, actually consist of? We suggest the $100,000 will double to over $200,000 once all the installation and dismantling etc etc costs are factored in.

9. If producers covered their own ad costs this would increase the viability and sustianability of their business and foster a healthier arts industry.

The proposal is "business welfare" to company that doesn't need it.

10. Precedent: if approved, this decision would create a precedent eventually costing ratepayers millions of dollars, merely to line producers' pockets and without one scintilla of evidence that most ratepayers attended or enjoyed such a brief puff-piece, two-hour show. Ratepayers would rather choose to see a show of their choosing at their own expence, we say, not subsidise others' entertainment.

Andrew Woodhouse

President
Potts Point and King Cross Heritage Conservation Society

Saving our past for the future
Ph 0415 949 506

• Sydney City Council
• Not Fixed
• Information Systems