JUNE 2024 QVMAG STRATEGIC INSTRUMENTS

 

Random Snaps of the Document ... Click Here

CONTEXT

In essence the current set of documents masquerading as  as the Queen Victoria Museum & Art's (QVMAG) "Strategigic Instrument" has all the characteristics of it being designed to stall meaningful change. The fact that it presents itself as being unsolicited its relevance is contestable. As always meaning is invested in the context.

Firstly, it needs to be said that the roles and functions are different and distinct and that is clearly set out in the Tsmania Local Govt Act 1993. To reiterate, 'governance' determines policy and strategic positioning and 'management' implements governance's determinations. No ifs, no buts! Governance may well seek management's 'advice' but it is 'governance' who deterines 'policy & stratergy' 'unless governance' has delegated its authority to management so to do. With the case in hand here there is no evidence that the Councillor – the QVMAG's governors by default – have delegated thier 'authority' to  management albeit that the institution's manage has taken it upon itself to put these 'instruments' in place.

As a consequence two things appear to be the case. 

• ... One being the QVMAG's management appears to be acting beyond it's authority and thus attempting to blur the roles of governance and management; and
• ... The other being that the Council – the elected 12 – on the evidence to hand, have abdicated their governance role in regard to the QVMAG. Moreover, as a consequence they are arguably in breach of the trust invested in them by the ratepayers and citizens of Launceston, and by extension, Tasmania's taxpayers and anyone who has intellectual property invested in the collections held by the QVMAG.

Therefore, the key determinations within this set of papers under the guise of being the “Transitional Governance Framework”, namely, for the transitioning of the QVMAG into another/new entity are at best questionable given that they purport to move: 

• ... Away from being a City of Launceston 'Cost Centre' with the elected Councillors effectively being the institution’s default ‘governing body’ without open deliberation and endorsement on the part of Councillors; and 

• ... Away from being a City of Launceston operation, 'owned an managed by the City of Launceston' with the Councillors effectively being the institution’s default ‘governing body’ cum default 'Trustees' without open deliberation and endorsement on the part of Councillors; and 

• ... Towards the city’s Executive Management deeming itself to have blended management cum governance function powers albeit without any apparent Delegated Authority being assigned to them so to do without open deliberation and endorsement on the part of Councillors;; and with

• ... Within this circumstance to ‘transition’ the QVMAG as a Council 'Cost Centre' to a QVMAG ‘Company Limited by Guarantee’ as recommended and determined in JUNE 2022 given the un-sustainability of the Status Quo without open deliberation and endorsement on the part of Councillors;; and 

• ... The ‘Council’ appointing an 'advisory body' upon whose advice Councillors may or may not accepted as having governance or management relevance and given that this body rarely if ever reports to Council in an open and formal context; and with

• ... Within this circumstance to ‘transition’ the QVMAG as a Council 'Cost Centre' the QVMAG will as has been the case since mid 2023 manage and expend funds without due diligence and meaningful budget controls without open deliberation and endorsement on the part of Councillors; and 

• ... For whatever reason this ‘transition’ has stalled until this point where it has been determined by ‘management’ to be some time away yet despite the institutions un-sustainability albeit without a compelling rationale for any further delay; and  

• ... For the lack of 'governance' and thus the lack of 21st C policies and strategies the infrastructure the institution occupies is undeveloped and/or under utalised in areas to the detriment of the institution realising its potential on behalf of its Community of Ownership & Interest – all of whom have significant investments – fiscal & intellectual – in the institution; and  

• ... Moreover, with the 'Instrument's' status and utility being at best ambiguous and in all likelihood self-serving managerially, projecting its relevance to 2028, and all of this without accountability to a constituency the circumstances around this document lacks both utility and credibility.

All that said, not everything in the document lacks credibility. It is just the case that it comes into being in a circumstance that lacks credibility and thus by extension the document and the assumptions in it lack utility to say the very least. For the most part this set of documents has relatively little to do with research and the 'advancement of knowledge' and better understandings – the QVMAG's foundation raison d'etre.

CITY OF LAUNCESTON COUNCILLORS AS MUSEUM GOVERNORS CUM TRUSTEES

Functionally, Councillors are ill prepared and ill equipped to be the Governors/Trustees of a cultural intuition (QVMAG) in exactly the same way as the Tasmanian Government’s Ministry is ill equipped to be the Governors/Trustees of a cultural intuition like the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery (TMAG Hobart). Both institutions are 'owned' by a division of government who in fact hold their collections in trust for Tasmania's people.

Moreover, neither does the Tasmanian. government's 'Executive Officers' have the wherewithal to 'govern' and they do not albeit that they advise the relevant Minister on:

• ... Performance outcomes; and 

• ... Strategic relevance; and

• ... Funding requirements.

Acknowledging this, the Tasmanian Government ‘appoints’ a Board of Trustees. On the other hand Launceston’s Councils over time has not followed this model. 

Therefore, the QVMAG operates as a cultural intuition that functions‘ without a formal standalone 'governing body’ that has a membership with the appropriate expertise and domain knowledge. 

In a 21st C context, arguably this puts the QVMAG’s priceless collections at risk by extension. Moreover, collection policies by-and-large reflect 19th C cum 20th C sensibilities.  Clearly this is an unsatisfactory circumstance brought about by Council's Management for unfathomable reasons over time. Moreover, it has been called out as being unsustainable.

OPTIONS FOR CHANGE 

1. ...To appoint a Board of Trustees with the City of Launceston retaining ‘ownership’ of the collection and Council – ratepayers exclusively!! – bearing all the cost of providing the infrastructure, staffing the institution and maintain the collection. This is expensive and demonstrably unsatisfactory as is currently the case and it has been deemed to be unsustainable; OR 

2. ...To assign the Trusteeship of the QVMAG to the TMAG along with its collections whilst supporting program funding on site’s in Launceston This has been canvassed and it has been deemed to be unsatisfacory by CoL; OR 

3. ...Establish a QVMAG ‘Company Ltd by Guarantee’ with the infrastructure and collections held in trust by the City of Launceston and the QVMAG operating as:

• ... A standalone institution funded in part by the City of Launceston; and

• ... The State Govt providing funding for collection maintenance and research; and 

• ... The QVMAG as an institution generating funds via entrepreneurial activity, project grants, corporate sponsorships, and private donations. This option is currently being envisaged as a sustainable option.

In essence this is the circumstance the STRATEGIC INSTRUMENT attempts to documents albeit attempting to maintain the status quo against the odds at the same time and the irrelevance of doing so. 

Nonetheless, the STRATEGIC INSTRUMENT is 'management's vision' of its future rather than a 'strategic policy' document 'commissioned by governance' reflecting governance's aspirations on behalf of its constituency cum Community of Ownership & Interest. 

Other options have been canvassed and there is the possibility that something other the three above would/could be sustainable. 

THE STATUS QUO 

Clearly the status quo is totally unsustainable and that has been called out as being so. 

The current state of affairs should not be allowed to persist given all that is at risk. That is not to mention the costs being carried by the city’s ratepayers constrains the institutions ability to develop, reach its full expression, and deliver 'local research outcomes' in a 21st C context. 

This being the case there is absolutely NO sustainable argument to: 

1. ...Delay the formation of a QVMAG Company Limited by Guarantee and ideally with a different nomenclature to reflect Launceston's post-colonial circumstance in the aftermath the city's colonial histories ; and .

2. ...Delay the appointment of a Commissioner, to oversight the establishment of an appropriate ‘company membership’ of say 100 all of whom bringing a variety of experiences that will enable them to identify and appoint a Board of Governors/Trustees with the relevant skills, expertise, and experience and reflect community aspirations and aspirations regarding 'cultural landscaping' in the region; and 

3. ...Delay the appointment of a Commissioner to nominate the initial members of the QVMAG Board of Governors/Trustees; and 

4. ...Delay the appointment of a Commissioner who ideally will be the initial Chairperson of the Board of Governors/Trustees and commence the task of structuring the QVMAG(?) CLG’s operation and seeking funding. 

The boxed set of documents being passed off as the QVMAG STRATEGIC INSTRUMENTS is yet another example of 'Executive Management' stalling what should be the inevitable, while maintaining the comfortable status quo and delaying 'expansive accountability' for a just a little longer. 

A competent Commissioner should be able fulfil her/his asswigned role within say six months. 

IN CONCLUSION

This  boxed set of documents are an expensive exemplar of what is known in the USA as a SNOWjob that in this case 'the 'instrument' is notable for what it DOES NOT SAY than what it does. For instance where is the MONEYmap? 

Rather than simply dismissing this set of documents the real need is to embrace change and get on with the research, the citizen science, the environmental research, the data collecting, the 21st C cultual landscaping, the reimagining of more inclusive histories, the restructuring of cultural sensibilities and sensitivities to fit current circumstances. 

Rather than giving precedence to the19th C cum 20th C norms in musingplaces in the Western World our Australian/Tasmanian institutions should be focused upon facilitating change locally while maintaining a keen eye on our own and the world's collective histories.

Unless this is done there is absolutely no justification at all for garnering funds from Launceston's ratepayers et al. Likewise, it is especially so in the case of the State's taxpayers given the myriad of cultural producers, researchers, historians, citizen scientists, designers etc. qualified to, and capable of, delivering yet to be realised outcomes outside moribund institutions and floundering cultural edifies, direct investment in them may well be better placed elsewhere. Currently 'traditional institutions' are showing all the symptoms of being in terminal intellectual decline and 21st C cultural irrelevance.

Musingplaces, art galleries and museums, must be places where ideas are contested and contestable. Otherwise, they become cynical political devices cum entertainment centres and circuses for the underclasses. ... “Give them bread and circuses and they will never revolt.” – Juvenal, a poet in Ancient Rome.” 

Two thoughts:

"A generation which ignores history has no past and no future." ... Robert Heinlein

"A small body of determined spirits fired by an unquenchable faith in their mission can alter the course of history." ... Mohandas Gandhi

Introduction

Introduction MAY 2015

Launceston City Council expends $99 million of public monies each year yet:

•  It appears to use no professional practices to assure probity;
•  Nor does it engage in open consultation processes with its constituency; and
• Nor does it appear to adhere to the Organisational Values Council espouses. 

Moreover,  Council does not appear to have a commitment to protecting its operations, and its constituency, from  the kinds of practices and opacity that tend to lead to untoward outcomes.

Consistently, ratepayers are faced with vague budgets that provide insufficient detail to enable realistic performance reviews, regionally focused cost centres that are allowed to grow exponentially and unsustainably, few articulated objectives or benchmarks, and repeated evasiveness regarding questions from ratepayers.

The net effect is to present an appearance of questionable governance and unprofessional management that surely has no place in Tasmania's largest local Council, particularly given the growing fiscal pressures on the community. 

This is particularly galling when such operations seem to be open to questionable practices. When a musingplace operating under aegis of Local Government becomes caught up in the kind of unaccountability put forward here. 

Submission to the Auditor General

Status: Independent and unsolicited
Author: Ray Norman
Date: May 2015

CONTEXT: The collections held by the Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery (QVMAG) rely upon public monies and philanthropic support – in cash, collection donations and in-kind support/sponsorships. Consequently, taxpayers, ratepayers and donors interests in the institution and its collections need to be protected.

The governance of the QVMAG and the protection and management of its collections is of particular concern when the evolving political discourse puts the institution's infrastructure, and by extension its collections, under scrutiny. It's especially so when the QVMAG's sustainability is being questioned and the spectre of 'rationalisation' arises consequentially in the local press.

Arguably, the QVMAG's collections are nationally significant and the claim that they form an important component of the 'national cultural estate'.

I was a foundation member of the QVMAG Governance Advisory Board (QVMAG MGAB) at the time it recommended that the QVMAG needed a Charter/Constitution and Strategic Plan. While the QVMAG does now have a Strategic Plan, it is more decorative than functional in that there is little or no ‘functional’ governance in place to implement and/or reinforce the KPIs. Furthermore, the QVMAG MGAB has not made any significant inputs into QVMAG policy development and implementation beyond the Strategic Plan.

Consequently, there are other policy shortfalls, and I believe, that there is a fundamental blurring of the governance and management roles that is counterproductive and inhibiting appropriate 21st C policy development and implementation.

When management itself devises and defines the policies the institution operates under it is ever likely that there will be inbuilt comforts and reduced accountability – at worst policies that are careless of constituency aspirations. In turn, all this does not, by necessity, bode well for transparency and credible accountability. Indeed, if accountability is seen as being discretionary it might not be all that surprising.

It is worth noting that with Launceston City Council as the QVMAG Trustees by default, in regard to the QVMAG:

• Holds something in the order of $230 Million in its collections. Disregarding the collections’ dollar value, and looking at their cultural and scientific values, the QVMAG's collections should be regarded as being a part of the ‘national cultural estate’; 

• That LCC conscripts something in the order of $140 plus from Launceston’s ratepayers per annum for the QVMAG’s recurrent costs in the order of $6 Million and currently receives a State Govt subsidy in the order of $1.4 Million to support its operational budget; and 

• Has a Draft(?) Collection’s Policy, that includes a Deaccession Policy, that would not meet the standards that apply in like institutions of its size and significance elsewhere in Australia; and furthermore it can be said that, as a standalone institution/operation it is less accountable, functionally, than any incorporated not-for-profit organisation given the lack of necessity for a separate constitution and standalone accountability. 

Consequently, claims that the QVMAG is effectively managed, and accountable, is open to challenge. Likewise, the QVMAG’s purpose, objectives and the rationale for its program and the building of its collections, appear to be elastic and at best ambiguous. 

The documentation of the QVMAG’s collections, like all institutions of its age and size, seem as if they are less than adequate and are vulnerable to leakages – anecdotally it seems that there have been some. Specifically, I believe that the institution's accession and deaccession policies and consequently the administrative security measures relevant to the protection of the collections are, I suggest, less than adequate relevant to current 21st C circumstances.

I simply ask that you investigate the governance and management of the QVMAG and make the recommendations that you see fit as you already have in the case of the TMAG.

Ray Norman: Independent Researcher & Cultural Geographer