In the ‘health and caring professions’ there is a concept to do with professional relationships between service provider and ‘patient’. It’s acronym is UPR – Unconditional Positive Regard – in acknowledgement of the reality that a requirement to “LOVE” a patient would be totally inappropriate. 'LOVE' is a loaded concept, it is emotional and beyond 'the rational' as is 'EROTIC LOVE' – both symbolised by the heart – and thus quite inappropriate in the context of the caring professions.
In the case of 'caring relationships' when intellectual cum rational concerns come into play, typically the 'gestural hand' turns up in the symbolism. This particularly evident in 'Eastern Spiritual Belief Systems' such a in Hinduism and Buddhism where 'the hand' is often to be found in iconography. 'Caring hands' are powerful symbols across 'cultural divides' and arguably usable in the 'value systems' espoused by local governance in a 'social science context' – eg. Launceston's. Unquestionably, UPR must be a KPI factor when evaluating a Local Govt's performance – no ifs, no buts!
Anyone who has experienced a serious ‘medical event’ will have experienced UPR albeit that they might not be able to put words to what they have experienced. Indeed, like ‘love’, its not anything you can describe but you know it when it is there, and thankfully it is, and it is all around us all the time.
Arguably, that is not entirely the case in regard to ‘professionalism’ in local governance. It’s glaringly absent at the City of Launceston’s Town Hall.
On the evidence, Launceston’s Mayor, GM/CEO and most, it would seem, of the so-called elected ‘representatives’ as well, regard their constituents quite differently to UPR. If the bureaucracy at CoL were to be put to the test in the way that the ‘caring professions’ can be they would find themselves in front of coroners, Royal Commissions and any number of professional accountability inquiries – and they would no doubt be found wanting.
It appears as if no longer does this council see it as their role to deliver on SECTION 2O of the Local Government Act 1993. Rather, it seems to see itself as a revenue collection agency, the ‘approver’ of developments that its constituency finds faults in and as a ‘operation’ well beyond the scrutiny of mere ratepayers, taxpayers and the press.
If the class of ‘professional standards’ applied to the ‘caring professions’ were to be applied to the governors and managers of ‘placemaking’ at Launceston’s Town Hall they would most certainly be deregistered – some might even find themselves in prison.
Tasmania's Huon Council and Glenorchy councils have been sacked, and if the UPR STANDARD was to be applied in Local Govt administrations, it is more than imaginable that changes would need to be made in Launceston.
Luther Blisset 2021
No comments:
Post a Comment