THE QVMAG: More popular than the footy, but this museum is costing the council millions

 

More popular than the footy, but this museum is costing the council millions

By Joe Colbrook, and Bailey Forbes Updated September 26 2025 - 8:54am, first published 5:30am

The Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery draws in more yearly visitors than Launceston's AFL games, but it comes at a cost the council struggles to bear.

The Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery at Royal Park. Picture by Paul Scambler, Ian Goninon, picture by Rod Thompson and Sam Johnson , City of Launceston Council CEO, picture by Paul Scambler.

From 2023 to 2024, QVMAG welcomed more than 153,000 visitors. Hawthorn's matches drew more than half of that, at 58,000.

Still, in 2024, the council lost $7.3 million running the Royal Park Art Gallery and the Inveresk Museum. [NO ... Not lost but SPENT $7.3 Millionj delivering a service to the Launceston ratepayers and other visitors]

Entry for both is free, with the only revenue, which in 2024 equated to $793,000, coming from merchandising and limited ticketed events. [YES ... Underperforming merchandising]

Burning a million-dollar hole in their pocket, some are asking, what are the council doing with it? [GOOD QUESTION!?]

The Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery draws in more yearly visitors than Launceston's AFL games, but it came at a cost the council struggled to bear. [NO ... Launceston's ratepayers invest in the QVMAG and the Council is not delivering the dividends it should and could be! ]

Bogged in the quagmire

In 2022, councillors endorsed a proposal to make QVMAG independent by establishing a company limited by guarantee. [YES ... And the Councillors sat on their hands and watched MANAGEMENT not do what they ...were not equipped so to do]

To achieve this, councillors adopted a strategic plan in 2024, which was intended to be implemented between 2023 and 2028 - several of them with deadlines throughout 2025. [NO ... Launceston Council Management stalled in favour of the status quo bereft of ideas and actually failing to deliver on the strategy COUNCIL endorsed ... Councillots failed to get management to implement their POLICY DECISION]

The council has set out to achieve several key objectives in 2025, including establishing a skills-based board, creating a future fund to finance the museum's operations, and registering the company as a charity. [NO ... This is the rhetoric and both the elected 12 and management lacked the wherewithal to deliver on the evidence. Also the FUTURE FUND was more rhetoric devised placate likely critics ... FUTURE FUNDS rely upon philanthropy and Australia does not provide sufficent incentives for philanthropist to provide their wherewithal!!]

Council chief executive Sam Johnson admitted "only a couple of the very first actions" had taken place as the project had become bogged down in a logistical and legal quagmire. [NO ... Both the elected 12 and management lacked the wherewithal and possibly , and possibly the will as well, to deliver on the evidence]

"We're talking about essentially establishing a new entity. So, it's not - and was never ever going to be - something really quick and easy to achieve, and it does bring some complexities to it," Mr Johnson said.

[NO ... There are clear and expedient pathways to set up companies limited by guarantee and ARTS LAW & ARTS TASMANIA exist to facilitate such initiative ... There is a case to be put that similar to environmental issues as Michal Mobbs calls it out ... there may well be PREMEDITATED IGNORANCE in play here in order to maintain the status quo ,,, incomes etc!?]

This new entity had to be tightly governed to ensure the collection, which the council touts as the largest in regional Australia, remained publicly accessible after the transition. [CERTAINLY ... There is the expertise available albeit NOT within Council's agencies ... A CITIZENS ASSEMBLY would very likely identify the experts to deliver the POLICY but no that concept was rejected on numerous occasions]

"We want to make sure that they're preserved and protected, and not preserved and protected just for the city of Launceston, but actually for the people of Launceston and for Tasmania," Mr Johnson said. [CERTAINLY ... However this would be the task set for the interim governance mechanism]

The Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery at Royal Park. Picture by Paul Scambler

'You've got to run some things at a loss' While this process is ongoing, the museum's operating costs continue to mount. [MISLEADING STATEMENT ... The QVMAG is a Council COST CENTRE and they are operated within a set budget to achieve Key Performance Indicators ... Local Govt is NOT a PROFIT making entity ... Rather when it funds something like a museum it is funding a COMMUNITY CULTURAL ENTERPRISE and yes an operation that generates INCOME for reinvestment in the enterprise.]

In the 2024-25 financial year, the council spent $8.1 million on operating the museum, and when other expenses, such as depreciation, are taken into account, the overall expenses were $9.744 million. [AGAIN A MISLEADING STATEMENT ... The QVMAG is a Council COST CENTRE and they are operated within a set budget to achieve Key Performance Indicators ... Fiscal management in the QVMAG's case was/is poor and mainly due to a lack of expertise on the elected 12's part and poor oversighting onn their part too]

The museum's overall income was $2.75 million, comprising $722,000 from trading and fees, and $2.03 million from grants and donations, resulting in an overall cost to the council of $6.991 million. [AGAIN A MISLEADING STATEMENT ... The QVMAG is a Council COST CENTRE and they are operated within a set budget to achieve Key Performance Indicators ... HOWEVER this level of income generated is pathetic and there are ways and means open to musingplace to generate income ... BUT WHO IS ASKING FOR THISV ADVICE!!??]

For the 2025-26 financial year, the net cost incurred by the council is expected to be $7.309 million - $2.868 million of income offset by $10.177 million in expenses. [AGAIN A MISLEADING STATEMENT ... The QVMAG is a Council COST CENTRE and they are operated within a set budgeb to achieve Key Performance Indicators ... HOWEVER this level of income is pathetic and there are ways and means open to musingplace to generate income that have not been explored]

Ian Goninon, a former Northern Midlands councillor of 20 years and current Launceston ratepayer, said the situation was untenable. [Mr Goninon is right in one sense ... However the QVMAG is a Council COST CENTRE operating within a set budget. What is untenable is that INCOME GENERATION was not and currently is not on anyone's agenda apparently ]

He said the arts were a vital part of community life, but in an environment where Launceston councillors approved a 5.7 per cent rates increase, something had to give. [Again Mr Goninon is right in one dsese.. However he is silent on the "something" that ratepayers must give up. Do they need to give up their idenity and placedness?? . If so for what purpose and to what end!?.. A rhetorical questions]

"I thought you could run [a council] as a business, and I quickly learnt that there's a community aspect to it. With that community thing, not everything runs at a profit - you've got to run some things at a loss," Mr Goninon said. [Well Mr Goninon Councils are NOT businesses, they are SERVICE PROVIDERS ... fee for service providers... However they can and should generate income where and when possible]

"I understand with museums that there'd be very few museums in Australia that would run at a profit, but how much loss are the ratepayers prepared to take for it?" [Again Mr Goninon museums do not exist to make PROFITS ... they exist to:

• Do research ;and
• Generate new knowledge and understandings; and
• That is how they deliver their DIVIDENDS - social & cultural]

His preferred course of action was charging an entry fee for high-profile exhibitions, like the recent showcase of Michael McWilliams' work. [YES Mr Goninon museums can and do charge entry fees... However, to charge Launceston ratepayers an entry fee might well be seen as DOUBLE DIPPING ... MONA makes entry to TASMANIAN visitors free and charges the rest and people come from afar for the now internationally renowned MONAexperience.]

This drew in 32,300 visitors - roughly three-quarters of them travelling from elsewhere in Tasmania, interstate or overseas. [YES Mr Goninon as above!]

As a free exhibition, it did not generate any revenue to offset the $143,468 cost of hosting it. Although sales of books and merchandise generated a net profit, the overall result was a $62,791 loss. [NO ... This is not a trading LOSS it is evidence of a LOST OPPORTUNITY that might have generated more income.]

"I would have been quite happy to pay $20 or $30 to go to the exhibition, which I went to twice, and then I went to the book signing and all that sort of stuff as well," Mr Goninon said. [AS MAYBE ... This for Mr Goninion would be double dipping to pay for entry BUT buying books and other items that is where extra income can be generated]

"With the people they got through, if they've paid $30 on 30,000 people, it's $1 million." [AS MAYBE ... However Mr Goninion if Launceston ratepayers did not pay the income might well be significant BUT we'll never know now!]
   

Michael McWilliams' recent exhibition drew in more than 30,000 visitors to the museum. File picture by Phillip Biggs

Dragging their feet?

The council chief executive said discussions around funding the museum were an ongoing matter. [AS MAYBE ... This has always been the case BUT its not a task for Local Govt Management ... It is to do with GOVERNANCE and at Town Hall that has been blurred and to an extent that is an impediment to good transparent and accountable operational standards ... The electerb12 have been told that SETION 65 of the Act is to guarantee 'EXPERT ADVICE' but it does not and cannot ... Civic Management is not equipped with the expertise in CULTURAL matterds and here we have an examplar over time that demonstrates the fact of the matter]

Mr Johnson said the council received an annual endowment from the state government; however, that paled in comparison to the services QVMAG provided. [ACTUALLY ... This ENDOWMENT is provided to enable the QVMAG to undertake research it might otherwise not be able do ... It was not proved to supplement RECURRENT EXPENDITURE]

"We do receive an endowment figure from the state government each year. That hasn't been increased adequately to reflect the increased cost of the service delivery at QVMAG," he said. [ACTUALLY ... This ENDOWMENT increases with the CPI and IF there is a case for more funding it will be best put by a STAND ALONE governing body with its own management team ... Moreover an expert BOARD OF GOVERNANCE / TRUSTEES would be able to seek supplementary PROJECT FUNDING that a Local Govt could not access ]

The chief executive drew a comparison to the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery in Hobart, which received nearly six times the amount of money from the state government. [ACTUALLY ... This statement is made regularly by Launceston's GM / CEOs but it is a furphy BECAUSE the TMAG is a STATE institution located in the CAPITAL and it is NOT a Hobart institution nor anything to do with Local Governance ... This statement is an example of the misunderswtandings in play at Town Hall]

"We have to rely on the ratepayers of the City of Launceston to support the wonderful institutions and wonderful work that our team there deliver for, not just Launceston, but for Tasmania as a whole," Mr Johnson said. [ACTUALLY ... This statement is misleading in a sense as

the QVMAG is a REGIONAL INSTITUTION that had a record of substantial research. ... This reputation is recoverable IF the QVMAG were to partner with other research groups/institutions but that requires a skills based BOARD OF GOVERNORS/TRUSTEES]

"We've got a legislative instrument [Link]that we can actually go back to the government and say, 'we're actually on the hook here. Let's have a conversation about making some parity here.' [ACTUALLY ... This statement is also somewhat misleading in that Mr Johnson does not identify the "legislative instrument", or the context within which it came to into being and the percived need for it, and as always the devil is in the detail ... BTW it weighs almost 2 Kilos and there is a place in our world where it would be called out for being a SNOW JOB!!]

"If this were in Hobart, the state's paying for all of it." [ACTUALLY ... NO for the reason stated above ... GEOGRAPHY is NOT in any way the issue here and to say that is ... well it fails the PUB TEST]

Arts Minister Madeleine Ogilvie said the funding provided to the council was valued at $1.8 million over the 2024-25 financial year, and said it was "tied to a perpetual deed" [ABSOLUTELY CORRECT ... This statement is unambiguous and factual]

"Funding for QVMAG is tied to a perpetual deed with the state government signed in 1999, administered by Arts Tasmania," she said. [ABSOLUTELY CORRECT ... This statement is unambiguous and factual]

"The Tasmanian Government notes and congratulates QVMAG for its longstanding commitment to quality exhibitions and its extensive contribution to ensuring the cultural heritage of Tasmania is protected." [ABSOLUTELY CORRECT & GENEROUS ... AND well said under the circumstances prevailing ... Moreover, the Minister is acting on expert advice!]

Although Mr Goninon criticised the council for moving at a "snail's pace" with the QVMAG transition, the council chief executive said it was more important to get things done right rather than quickly. [YES but there has been both the time and the opportunity to do what needs to be done... AND 'COUNCIL' has seriously failed it constituency ... SO Council has got it quite wrong and nobody will be congratulated for saying so]

"Have we achieved everything we set out to achieve by the timeframes that we wanted to achieve them by? No, unfortunately, but I think doing it right is the most important thing here," Mr Johnson said. [YES, YES but there actually has been both the time and opportunity to do it BUT to be fair Mr Johnson is preceded by two GM/CEOs who must wear much of the failure on exhibition now and that is not to mention the CONGAline of Aldermen/Councillors who failed their constituency over time ... Also there is a goodly population of dilettantes at Town Hall and there are no prizes for calling that out... The ball is now in this Council's court lets see how they play it and with whom]

......................................

ENDNOTE

The QVMAG has a large Community of Ownership & Interest

and is evident that CoL Management has over a long time

has been antithetic to that being the case. This is evidenced

by Council's assertion that the Council " owns and operates

the QVMAG". In 'law' it might, given that the Westminster System

demands that all property is "owned' by someone, the crown, etc.

Nonetheless in 'lore' musingplaces are owned by a constituency,

a network of networks, communities, etc. as they are CULTURAL property

and much of what they hold in collections has INTELLECTUALproperty

rights attached to objects etc.

Moreover, in the management management of musingplaces collections

there are protocol that are designed to protect CP & IP andespecially so

when it comes to accession & deaccession.

Back References

• ... https://thequeensmusingplace.blogspot.com/2014/07/musingplaces-and-communities-of.html

• ... https://qvmaggovernance2017.blogspot.com/

• ... https://qvmag2017.blogspot.com/

• ...https://qvmag2017.blogspot.com/p/legislation-references.html

• ... https://qvmag2017.blogspot.com/p/participatory-musing.html

• ... https://qvmag2017.blogspot.com/p/blog-page_10.html ..,ACCOUNTABILITY

• ... https://museumstasmania2022.blogspot.com/

• ... https://museumstasmania2022.blogspot.com/p/musingplace-sustainability.html

• ... https://museumstasmania2022.blogspot.com/2022/07/21st-century-musing-in-lutruwitatasmania.html

• ... https://museumstasmania2022.blogspot.com/p/20152016-budget-submission-to-lcc-qvmag.html

• ... https://qvmag2018.blogspot.com/ ....palawa/pakana acknowledgement & Engagement

WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE AN "OLD FASHIONED THINKER"?

FOREWORD

At the outset it is apparent that believing that accountability and transparency matters in 'governance' is an unfashionable idea currently. As America stairs into the abyss and thus the world along with it, 'accountability' becomes increasingly discretionary. It seems to be the case when a musingplace's Community of Ownership and Interest is run over roughshod as a cultural fiefdom attempts to take shape. POPElike, authorities are sought and invoked careless of the reality that not all of the constituency are followers or adherents. Some, many indeed, march to the beat of very different drums.

When their 'representatives' look away they are either abdicating their obligations or they're  self-serving. When John Adams, American President and revolutionary change agent said ... "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence".

Musingplaces are our secular churches and temples. They are 'places' and cultural precincts with distinct characteristics. They're among the places where we might go in our attempts to make sense of the world.  Christopher Hitchens tells us that ... "Religion is part of the human make-up. It's also part of our cultural and intellectual history. Religion was our first attempt at literature, the texts, our first attempt at cosmology, making sense of where we are in the universe, our first attempt at health care, believing in faith healing, our first attempt at philosophy." So, musingplaces, like churches, chapels, temples, sanctuaries and shrines are clearing houses for contested and contestable ideas. They are where we go in search of wisdom.

When such places resonate with calming sounds and the ringing of bells and with the air filled with exotic smells these things are there to help us transport ourselves into another place, another MINDset, another paradigm. They may be entertaining but it is not their entire purpose. It is not a museum's purpose!

So far as fundamental principles are concerned at Launceston's Town Hall, in 'management' it has apparently been deemed that 'accountability' is discretionary and in Tasmania the 'get out of jail' provision in the Local Govt Act (1993) is SECTION 62/2 as bizarre as that might seem, it is there to assist. It has been used to defend actions that under other circumstances would/could/should be illegal or contested.

So, let's begin with accountability in Local Govt. [LINK] In the State Govt. Good Governance Guides, it states that "accountability is a fundamental requirement of good governance. Local government has an obligation [the condition of being morally or legally bound to do something] to report, to explain and to be answerable for the consequences of decisions it has made on behalf of the community it represents and serves." IF a constituency is well represented by its governance – it's Council & Councillors – there is no need for 'operational confidentiality' except in an emergency when there may be legitimate concerns about who might use what information in a counterproductive manner.

Moreover, there is a need to definitively define what constitutes an 'emergency'.

WHAT IS INVESTED IN OUR MUSINGPLACES 

So when it comes to investing constituents' funds in a musingplace, firstly it needs to be acknowledged that with musingplace that is also a 'cost centre' there are conflicts of interest. That is serious conflicts and inhibiting conflicts of interest.

In 'cost centres' there are pragmatic concerns and considerations. Typically they are fiscal concerns that can be resolved by fiscal adjustment. With 'musingplaces' the concerns are cultural, idealogical and to do with morality. Yes, there are fiscal concerns but in the end they are 5th order concerns unless perspective has become lost in the quagmire of politics.

Investments to do with 'musingplaces' is to do with cultural landscaping rather than the imperatives that apply to the appropriate fiscal management of fee for service, and the pragmatics of a 'Council Operation' . The two issues are distinctly different. Those applying to an operation charged with the task of collecting and curating cultural and intellectual property are to do with our cultural realities and placedness rather than anything to do with fiscal wealth. 

Different priorities apply and that has not been recognised as the QVMAG was licenced to grow exponentially by-and-large without fiscal restraints. This was folly and folly has been the outcome. The greatest folly was/is that this operation cum cost centre has been afforded the luxury of being immune to, and insulated from, any level of criticism and critique. 

Notwithstanding any of this, the QVMAG has in essence remained a colonial institution pretty much dedicated to the maintenance of status quoism with terra nullius imaginings lurking in the background. Like the 'colonial museums' it was/is modelled on it is filled with cultural property, some of it stolen, some of dubious or contestable origin, all of it loaded with stories and political innuendo and most of it hidden away.

Anyway, George Orwell has told us that "In our age there is no such thing as 'keeping out of politics.' All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred and schizophrenia".

Information and experience is what distinguishes the dilettante from the makers, the doers, the critical thinkers and those who can see their world quite clearly in any light.

Politically the notion that musingplaces exist to offer entertainment is the same one that Juvenal, a poet in Ancient Rome who coined ..."Give them bread and circuses and they will never revolt.” Consider what was done with this advice, and political device, if you dare or care!

In a 21st C context 'plonked down' curiosities have very short shelf lives albeit that the haptic experience is important. Currently it is the dinosaurs' backstories that attracts, and the haptic experience is over with, and new and enhanced understandings of being in the world is the hunger and the thirst.

How all that is to be delivered is the conundrum that demands that musingplaces exist to provide ways forward for. Sadly, all too few institutions are engaged in the research that delivers better understandings and sometimes the new knowledge that changes our ways to be in the world. Collecting is hunting and gathering and as useful as this is it is not research.

Musingplaces are the clearing houses for new and redundant ideas – all of which are contestable and there to be contested. Therefore, within musingplaces there are ideas that need to be contested and entering one aught not be there to experience some warm and fuzzy feeling. Rather it should and could be to confront the comfortable and the uncomfortable, the fresh and the rotting, the imaginable and the unimaginable.

As Orson Welles said of himself ... "Everything about me is a contradiction, and so is everything about everybody else. We are made out of oppositions; we live between two poles. There's a philistine and an aesthete in all of us, and a murderer and a saint. You don't reconcile the poles. You just recognize them." Musingplaces have a role to play in assisting us in the recognition of the realities we live within.

Indeed, musingplaces have at their genesis a network of collectors and others who think about museums from various perspectives fuelled by the search for enlightenment. By-and-large they are people who operate from outside 'The Musingplace' but are nonetheless people who have various layers of interest in these institutions and their collections. In the context of cultural sensibilities and sensitivities of 'a time', and what things have to offer, these 'places' can be politically dangerous.

Ole Worm's musingplace/wundekammer of the late 1500s early 1600s in Denmark is at the gensis of what we now know 'musingplaces' to be. His 'collections' straddled the border between modern and pre-modern science and by extension 'cultural production'. These 'places' often  catalogue places', a nation's, an empire's, a cultural realities' histories and stories – and they have at the same time exuded the social largess of identity, prowess  and power. 

Consequently 'musingplace managers', unlike Ole Worm, are the servants of their sources of 'fiscal sustenance'.  Their role is to reflect and give substance to the imaginings and the sensibilities of their Communities of Ownership and Interest. There is nothing new, audacious, or novel in this as it is a time honoured principle that 'Governance' determines policy and strategy while  'Management'  implements them – Public Administration 101.

The separation of powers – church and state, government and administration – is a long held principle in representational government since the Industrial Revolution. There is something like 30PLUS forms of governance but it is just the case that in Tasmania currently representational governance, for all its 21st C inadequacies, is what exists. 

Consequently, there is no scope, and there ought not be any, or any latitude to bend the rules and blend the roles of governance and management. That over time in Launceston, the elected representatives have sanctioned the blanding and blending is something of an indictment on the city's Aldermen, now Councillors, ineptitude and their misplaced delegated authorities given the consequences now on display.

In a sense the QVMAG can be likened to Baby Huey who was/is a character in a comical of post WW2 'American' depiction of family life.

Huey's parents, Papa and Mama Duck (Gilbert & Silly), always struggled to manage their overgrown son despite his overbearing weight and strength, which often resulted in damage to his family's house or car, injury to Papa, or a threat from Papa's boss to fire him if Huey harmed the boss or caused damage to his home or office.

Papa often disparaged Huey (who remained oblivious to his disapproval). Huey's main sidekicks were small identical triplet ducks (who bore a striking resemblance to Donald Duck's nephews, Huey, Dewey and Louie) who resented or mocked Huey for his stupidity and clumsiness but depended on his superhero strength to get them out of trouble.

This is something from the 1950s and post WW2 American internationalism – America being the land of the free and super heroes – that BABYboomers might remember. Whatever, it is a circumstance that resonates loudly at the QVMAG as 'management' grew exponentially in a 21st C context and bumbled around growing unconstrained – and by-and-large rudderless.

Nonetheless the QVMAG promises to deliver entertainment misrepresents the purposefulness of musingplaces when a musingplace's purposefulness should/could be focused elsewhere.

An overgrown HUEYlike self-demanding cum self-serving entity cannot go on without reference to the expectations, aspirations and ambitions of its constituency even if it is on the spectrum. That is as unsustainable for a cost centre as it is for a purposeful standalone cultural institution. And that is the untenable circumstance that has been called out as being unsustainablen – and rightly so.

If it "old fashioned" to insist upon the separation of powers (AKA the separation of management and governance) so be it and let's be old fashioned unless or until 'direct/participatort democracy' is achieved or achievable again in a 21st C context. The separation of the roles of governance and management should be enforced and scrupulously even if it is 'old fashioned' to say so.

Two quotes ... "Followers who tell the truth, and leaders who listen to it, are an unbeatable combination." ... Warren Bennis ... "Always do right. It will gratify some people and astonish the rest." -- Mark Twain

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

If a governing body determines that it is within the interest of its constituency to support an entity of any kind and it has the support and endorsement of its constituency it is incumbent upon 'governance' to:

•  Ensure that the entity delivers the best outcomes relative to expenditure; and
• Ensure that the best possible infrastructure is available to the entity; and that
• The entity is managed competently, effectively and accountably.

In representational governance it is highly unlikely that the personnel with the expert domain knowledge needed to do these things is there within the representatives in most circumstances. If it exists at any level within the ranks of representational governance, their expertise is by-and-large focused elsewhere and on the criteria they were elected on. They are quite different when it comes to operations there to provide expert driven outcomes and therefore typically experts are appointed and commissioned to deliver the required outcomes. 

This is generally well understood and especially so in the cases of cultural and scientific entities. It is especially so when it comes to the medical sciences. Here it is unlikely that in the case of say hospitals, representational governance would reliably deliver a full compliment of representatives with the required range of medical expertise. Consequently, they appoint expert committees, boards of directors and/or trustees peopled with 'experts' who deliberate upon an determine strategic positioning and policy. In turn these experts appoint managers to deliver on their strategic positioning against performance indicators. 

Consequently, it is a convention that representational governance appoints trustees and boards of directors for cultural entities. Typically, people with the appropriate expertise and domain knowledge to govern such institutions at arm,'s length are appointed. In turn representational governance become 'funding agencies' rather than strategic policy determiners as that role is delegated to the trustees/directors.

Nonetheless funding agencies may well place conditions that are attached to their funding for political reasons or to serve some social or economic purpose. 

For 'purposeful operations' they need a clear unambiguous reason for being. They are most effective when the consequent objectives and their rationales are determined by 'experts' with domain knowledge. Ideally, such expert  advice needs to be sought outside the aegis of the executive given that the requisite un-conflicted domain knowledge and expertise is likely to be found there.

Similarly, elected representatives rarely if ever have been elected on the basis that they hold such idiosyncratic expertise either collectively or individually.

Against this background there is an unavoidable conflict of interest when the members of a funding agency seek membership of an appointed governing body the funding agency funds on behalf of the constituency they supposedly represent. At best this is double dipping and counter productive. 

Nonetheless, in regard to reimagining the QVMAG there are indications that there are Councillors and executive officers, who in regard to the QVMAG's future, they are assuming that they can entertaining the notion that they possess the wherewithal to be effective and that their domain knowledge is adequate. Where that is so it is delusionary and as we all know, a delusion is something that people cling to despite a total lack of evidence. It turns out that planet earth isn't really flat and the world wasn't actually made in seven days and as for the tooth fairy and other such enties.....

Clearly, it is a conflict of interest for a serving Councillor to seek membership of a new standalone entity it intends to be a primary funding agency for. It needs to be said however that it is not inappropriate for a member of a funding agency to attend Directors/Trustee meetings just so long as they play no part in policy determination or strategic decision making albeit that their attendance would/should only be at the discretion of the meeting's Chair.

Nonetheless, 'Councillors' (funding agency members) have amply opportunities to place conditions on any funding or in-kind support provided by the agency plus an obligation to ensure funding is expended for the purposes it has been provided for – and even here outside expert advice might well be required. Fulfilling obligations here is an onerous task and as often as not it is a call well beyond expectations.

THE PROMISES OF CHANGE.

Whenever significant change to an operation typically proponents look around to divine that which suits their understanding of what works and what meets their expectations and what complies with their value systems. It is not unusual that much of this is undertaken while wearing rose coloured glasses, and that is to be expected. It just needs to be taken account of.

The thing that is often not taken close account of is that in 'placemaking' is that geography and cultural landscapes matter enormously. Things are not always where you would like them nor understood as you as you expect or desire. Despite the incentives to homogenize cultural realities geography is ever likely to get in the way and then comes the geographically grounded people.  

As a 'place', metaphorically, lutruwita, Van Diemen's Land, Tasmania, ponrabbel/Launceston even, was not, is not, all of what might have been hoped for by the colonisers. Yes, for ponrabbel/Launceston there was water a plenty but it was a swamp albeit the most fecund place on lutruwita and yet not quite fit enough for a European military outpost. Nonetheless, the Indigenous people found living good lives in it they were well served by their cultural landscape that they had 'made' and nurtured. Indeed, it had served them very well for millennia. 

Put simply, the difference between lutruwita's people and their European invaders being that unlike the colonists in this place they, the people that belonged to and in lutruwita, could find utility in what they had at their feet and it was sufficient.  

In a sense the American writer and mythologist, Joseph Campbell, when he invoked the concept of "following your bliss", and saying that "doors will open for you that wouldn't have opened for anyone else” he had in mind peoples like lutruwita's people. That is so albeit that he didn't or couldn't have known very much at all about lutruwita's people. Nonetheless, he knew a great deal about the sensibilities and the imperatives that informed people in many places, not the least the European invaders' 'bliss points' – and all that was at his feet. 

It is not too long a bow to draw to suggest that lutruwita's people had museingplaces where they could acknowledge and celebrate 'their bliss', their myths, their stories, their realities. That is so despite the colonial Eurocentric vision of them being there as fauna – ignoble and savage – to fuel their 'bliss points'. In fact Tasmanian musingplaces held in their 'collections' elements of such places – Tasmanian Aboriginal petroglyphs.

The confluence of two rivers and an estuary – where 'the fresh' collided with 'the salt' – two cultural realities collided somewhat catastrophically. The Eurocentric colonials required enormous effort in engineering and cultural landscaping to be expended to enable the 'place' to be plundered and exploited as its resources were desired/required elsewhere. 

Consequently, the histories, the frontier warmongering and the depravation are contentious and that should not surprise anyone any longer. However, its acknowledgement is suppressed and in many ways that shouldn't surprise anyone any longer either. In any event it is not a place full of promise if the enterprise is to do with the hunt for philanthropy close to home.

So, with this underlay it should be no surprise that the wealth this 'place' generated elsewhere in its colonial context is also deposited elsewhere. Thus hunting for philanthropists is not likely to turn up very many close to home. Plus, those who might have the wherewithal to tell or celebrate this place's stories, or their stories even, as often as not are unwilling to buy into the contention that might well come with it.

Funding musingplaces always has a political facet and given that in Australia, that is the Commonwealth of Australia, essentially government one way or another holds the keys to the coffers. Therefore, unless your institution is prepared to meet political expectations it is ever likely to be a beggar rather than being patronised towards this or that end that confronts the status quo or some political ideal. The veneer that camouflages the politics is extraordinarily thin.

Currently, July 2024, as the world stairs into the political abyss before it and the status quoist shift and sometime lurch more in line with the direction of the wind's unpredictable 'destinations', things appear to be a lot like they might have been when planet earth was flat. Back then it was imagined that there was an edge to fall over. One wonders what it was that they imagined they'd take over that edge with them – for what purpose and to where. It is imponderable!

So when 'change' is contemplated, and the subject is a local musingplace in a 'place' like ponrabel/Launceston, the real question hanging in the air is change from what to what and why? So far from a managerial cum musingplace perspective what is being proffered is essentially two versions of much the same business case. Ostensively the case for change is framed around maintaining the status quo but with access to  larger 'money pools'– imagined but not identified in any real sense.

We need not be too scared of totalitarianism and its fellow travellers of the past and those among us today but it would be folly to ignore them. What is really scary is the thousands of millions of people that hallucinate them to be "authority", and so do their bidding, and pay for their empires, and work towards empowering their autocratic authority. The worry is not one looney with a stupid uniform, a weird headdress and a self satisfying grin. She's/He's not a threat, it is the people do not believe in their own "authority".

Musingplaces should/could be places where ideas are contested, mediated, levelled, arbitrated, and reconciled possibly. However, none of this is a remote possibility in any kind of meaningful way if they are euphemistically the kennels for political lapdogs.

Saying any this may not stop children elsewhere from being buried in bloodstained shrouds alongside their parents, siblings, friends, relatives et al. Nonetheless, it is folly to 'look away' from the catastrophic given that there is not an 'away' to look towards.

Since humanity discovered the existence of 'gold' there has been an ongoing quest for it despite the fact that it is possibly one of the elements in the earth's crust with the least utility. 'Gold' is a kind of metaphore for 'truth' albeit that primordially the 'truths of the enlightenment' have less utility they we might imagine.

Click here for other visualizations

But how much of this stuff called 'gold' is there? Like, how much gold has been discovered in the world till now?

As of now, approximately 244,000 metric tons of gold have been discovered globally. This figure includes both historically produced gold – about 187,000 metric tons – and the current underground reserves – approximately 57,000 metric tons. Gold is arguably the most recycled material we have and once found it is said that less than 2% returns to the earth's crust. That all this has been measured and mused upon is extraordinary.

The peoples of the Southern American continent collected an enormous proportion of the gold that exists and is traded today. These people imagined it as 'GOD SHIT' but they didn't mine it, rather they gathered it up from river sand. Much of this same gold was often twice plundered once by the Conquistadors and later by the English Tudor Queen Elizabeth's pirates.

This stuff 'gold' comes loaded with stories to be mused upon as do 'truths'. Despite its lack of utility there is an inbuilt success factor in a business case for gleaning gold – even just talking about it. However mounting a business case for gleaning truths comes with conditions that are sometimes somewhat inhibiting.

Conceivably musingplaces do not, indeed should not, need a business cases in a 21st C context because they are not, and should not be, 'businesses' and be there for the purpose of entertainment and/or to deliver dollar dividends. As 'businesses' they become pacifiers of the kind that is known 'politically' as the "Bread and circuses" syndrome.

This is a  phenomena refers to the political pacification of 'the people' with food and entertainment to prevent them from taking un-welcomed action upon their civic leaders.The concept was first described by the Roman poet Juvenal during the transition from the Roman Republic to the Roman Empire. It symbolizes the trade-off of democratic freedoms for stability under a controlling government and nobody should be surprised if politicians wishing to maintain the status quo uses it still.

Nonetheless, a musingplaces' 'purposefulness' needs to be clearly and succinctly articulated but conceivably an 'enterprise plan' would have more utility. An enterprise plan that confesses its limits and engages with its communities of interest can deliver gold like dividends given all that is not gold is washed away, or put to one side, leaving the gold to be treasured and mused upon.

Social cum community enterprises are organisations led by local communities collaboratively and cooperatively. They are operations set up for a social or cultural purpose.

The success of such enterprises is measured in terms of social and cultural dividends rather than monetary benefits. Some examples are: Community museums; Community-based child care centres; Health care centres; Sports clubs; Housing cooperatives; and Charities. These enterprises must find ways to cover their expenses. Typically, their funds come from various sources. Sources may include government funding, fundraising and fees charged to users of service.

The important thing being that they are strategically 'standalone operations' set up to be self-governing and to purposefully; serve and engage with a Community of Ownership & Interest. Plus, they are accountable to those who provide recurrent and operational funding. Importantly that means that all funding is used for its intended purpose with no dividends due to directors, managers or operational staff over and above their salaries and wages.

A PARADIGM SHIFT: A STANDALONE COMMUNITY CULTURAL ENTERPRISE POSSIBILITY

A PLAN TO MAKE THE STATUS QUO LOOK A LITTLE DIFFERENT

If this 'strategic plan' adopted by Council is in fact a paradigm shift then the city's new GM/CEO raises some concerns from the get go. When he is quoted in the press to say "Specific actions listed in the new strategic plan include creating a futures fund to allow the museum to be self-sufficient, and establishing a new governance board...The exact makeup of the board is still to be determined, however elected and non-elected representatives from the council are likely inclusions" [The CEO] this is concerning. Why? Best practice suggests that 'funding agencies', here the current serving Councillors should:

•  Not be a decision making member on a the board of governance of any operation Council funds; and also
•  Not be a voting member of any entity operation Council funds; as
• It is these instances that represents a conflict of interest. 

Serving administrative officers likewise should not be on Boards of Governance/ Trustees because arguably they too have a serious conflict of interest and quite probably lack the credentials required. 

Moreover, 21st C musingplaces, looking ahead, increasingly will need to be 21st C 'publishers' . Given this, their governances need people in governance roles who can assist and support their operations in navigating such a course forward. Currently, no serving Councillors seem to have this class of expertise.

Nonetheless, at the discretion of the Board's/Trustees' chairperson it is appropriate that representatives of funding agencies attend decision making meeting as non-voting representatives. In any event, that which determined Councillors' and management's lack of "expertise" dose not change with the shift of a 'cost centre' to a standalone entity designed to deliver outcomes informed by experts with professional credibility. The subtext being that Councillors as elected representatives didn't by necessity have the requisite 'expertise' albeit that they may be nonprofessionals with an interest. 

Currently we we might profitably consider, what the son of one of Hitler's most highly decorated general's, Rommel the 'Desert Fox', one Manfred Rommel had to say about Hitler and his dilettantism ... "he was a completely amoral person. Yes, he had no morals at all." It is little wonder that the space given to dilettantism is so very small. It is especially so as we currently stair into an abyss with the likes of Putin, Trump, Netanbyahu, et al strutting their stuff and expounding their hollow rhetoric to a concerning number of believers and adherents and with those who fall foul of find themselves buried in mass graves.

Therefore, if 'the purpose' of the agency is to deliver outcomes informed by a membership that has the expertise and the domain knowledge called for, it is either unlikely that the elected representatives would have it and even if they did it remains a conflict of interest. 

Purposeful cultural entities need to be able to demonstrate their independence to ALL funding agencies, sponsors and donors to ensure that their conditions of funding are not likely to be compromised in any way and that the institution is in fact  'trustworthy'.

Given that the purpose of the paradigm shift now in play is to increase funding opportunities for a 'museum and art gallery' the need is to ensure that there are enhanced opportunities for:

• Receiving the funding for expanded recurrent budgets, and 
• Being eligible for government cultural grants; and
• Being deserving of, and attracting, community donations and sponsorships; and
• Having the capacity to transition to progaming that better fits contemporaneous muser's expectations and aspirations; and
• Facilitating the publishing of research outcomes in multiple formats; and
• Wining the worthiness that philanthropy seeks; plus 
• Having the eligibility to build relationships that lead to the development of collaborative and cooperative projects and research leading to enhanced outcomes; and  
• That being the case the institution's protocols need to be best practice along with its credentials being widely regarded as being impeccable.

The QVMAG as a Company Limited by (QVMAG CGL) Guarantee will very quickly discover that new opportunities will be open to the institution that just were not there as a Local Govt Cost Centre. 

Given that it is a demonstrable operational imperative, the level of 'accountability' on offer is attractive to entities looking to, or willing to, develop collaborative and cooperative partnerships. Such partnerships have enhanced universities research opportunities enormously and especially so in regard to winning Australian Research Council (ARC) grants etc. Indeed the mutual benefits are plain to see if they are looked for. 

That said institutions like regional musingplaces are generally ill equiped to seek ARC funding given that they generally lack the personnel with accredited 'research qualifications'. This needn't be the case but sadly it is albeit that with the incentives it can be rectified IF musingplaces proactively engage with their Communities of Ownership and Interest (COI). 

The first step here is recognising and acknowledging that there is such a thing as a COI. The second step being, proactively engaging with their COI.

LINK

A poignant reference here is Nina Simon (born 1981) who is an American exhibition curator, writer, educator, and museum director. She is the founder of the non-profit organization OF/BY/FOR ALL. Simon previously was the executive director of the Santa Cruz Museum of Art & History – 2012 to 2019. She is the author of three books: The Participatory Museum, being an important reference in regard to musinplaces. Her work has been shared in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, NPR, and TEDx. She resides in Santa Cruz, California.

While the Santa Cruz MAH's (https://www.facebook.com/santacruzmah/?locale=is_IS) placedness and the QVMAG's placedness are distinct and quite, quite different, nonetheless the MAH's experience offers much to glean and that has been by many.

Status quoists will not find much to comfort their stance however. Here there is a yawning gap between thinking and acting between, between believing and doing, between need and fulfilment. In turn this prevents us from resolving and confronting our most pressing social problems. Cultural landscaping is a thing we do, not something we stumble upon contrary to some mindsets that informs bureaucratic status quoism.

Wisdom suggests, and rightly so, that musingplaces should be averse to mediocrity, and to every form of shallow or to premature exultation. Now is not the time to boast or hold on to glowing prophecies, yet there is the proposition that humanity's future looks bleak, and actually quite desperate, to all eyes except those that look away. We must say out loud before a despairing world that we might yet be the masters of our fate. Indeed, we might still imagine that we can be the captains of our aspirations just so long as we do not look away as there we'll find stairing into an abyss pointless – actually there is no away.

Against this backgrounding this is no time at all to be looking away as far too much will be lost. Of all the things we might lose, what we'll miss while we are staring into an abyss is our ability to be who we are, where we are, in our place, embedded in our placedness, this will be that which we will miss the most.

LINK