Draft Tasmanian Museum & Art Gallery Legislation

Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 13:10:11 +1100
To: Will Hodgman <reception@tas.liberal.org.au>
Cc: "Vanessa Goodwin [Minister for the Arts]" <vanessa.goodwin@parliament.tas.gov.au>,
"Peter Gutwein {Treasurer & Minister Local Govt.}" <peter.gutwein@parliament.tas.gov.au>

Dear Premier,

RE: Draft Tasmanian Museum & Art Gallery Legislation

Firstly it is with considerable pleasure that I write to you in regard to the draft legislation for the Tasmanian Museum & Art Gallery (TMAG). Electorally, once the Act is in place your government can justifiably expect to significantly raise standards in regard to this aspect of governance in Tasmania – indeed Australia. This is something your constituents will appreciate and reward you for.

Tasmania already stands out in that such a significant and diverse component of the nation’s ‘cultural estate’ is held in Tasmania within the TMAG’s collections plus other public collections throughout Tasmania. Importantly, this draft Act underscores the importance of the Tasmanian component of the nation’s collections that altogether add growing value to the ‘Australian cultural reality’.

I was provided a copy of the draft Act circulated to Royal Society members one of whom was asking my opinion of it. He knew that I had working knowledge of the Act this Act replaces as I once held the position of Senior Project Office (Visual Arts & Crafts) with the Tasmanian Arts Advisory Board – albeit quite some time ago now.

I can only say that I was considerably impressed and very much reassured by the draft Act’s provisions. This is especially so given the level of accountability and the rigor of the security the Act offers to Tasmania’s cultural community – indeed people beyond the state.  Importantly, the draft Act provides a new and enhanced level of protection for all those people who:

• Have important research outcomes and intellectual property invested in institution – and for a long time;
• Have cultural and intellectual property invested in the institutions collections – history collections, scientific collections and the various collections of cultural production, etc.;
• Use the institution as an educational resource in a myriad of ever expanding ways;
• Have donated money, and equally importantly, significant cultural and scientific material to the institution’s collections since the TMAG’s foundation; and all those who have
• Sponsored the institution and volunteered their time towards ‘investing in’ and thus enriching the institution’s programs over time.
  

Far from being a ‘theme park’ focusing upon the amusement and entertainment of visitors the TMAG plays a substantial and multi-dimensional role in Tasmania’s community life. Likewise, museums and art galleries throughout Tasmania are playing an increasingly important part in the state’s cultural tourism. Arguably, with a 21st Century refocusing, Tasmania’s museums and art galleries have more than ever to offer the wider community with much yet to be realised.

Arguably more so now than ever the states’ museums and art galleries can offer new opportunities and especially so if they were to be operating collaboratively and cooperatively. It also needs to be acknowledged that all this is now taking place in a changing world with new demands.

That said, and against this background, I have serious concerns about how the increasing importance of museums and art galleries throughout Tasmania and beyond the TMAG. My concerns are to do with the ways ‘public collections’ can be both capitalised upon and protected. In particular, I have in mind the ‘credible accountability’ of those institutions operating under the aegis of the Local Govt. Act 1993. 

These institutions and their collections might well offer so much more than currently if they were required to manage their collections with the same levels of security and accountability that is embedded in the draft TMAG Act 2016. Currently under the aegis of the Local Govt. Act they do not!

SECTIONS 65 & 62 of the Local Govt. Act 1993 calls upon a general manager to guarantee that the councillors/aldermen are making their policy determinations on expert advice. Based on performance, all too often this cannot be demonstrated relative to collection management. This is so in so much as there is sufficient ambiguity in the Act to allow for the ‘deeming’ of expertise without it needing to be demonstrated nor by necessity to have objective veracity.

More to the point, given that it’s the councillors’/aldermen’s role to determine policy as ‘Trustees’ and it is management’s role to implement these policies the ambiguity entrenched within SECTIONS 65 & 62 is concerning. It is particularly so in regard to Tasmania’s museum and art galleries’ governance and management – and especially so in regard collection management in a 21st Century context and under the Local Govt Act. 

The inappropriateness of SECTIONS 65 & 62 is only compounded by the fact that ‘museum management’ is not regarded as a council’s “core business” – indeed nor should it be. Therefore, the governance and management roles can become, arguably has become, blurred. Clearly, this comes about due to the lack of relevant legislation plus the almost unavoidable lack of museum governance expertise nor contemporaneous museum policymaking, within a cultural context and/or within the representative wing of councils – these collections quasi ‘Trustees’. 

Unfortunately, those ‘public collections’ held by organisations not incorporated as not-for-profit organisations, hold within them important collections containing highly valuable material that, collectively, is quite vulnerable to inappropriate dispersals and disposal. Moreover, there are the added risks that dubious accountability brings given that this ‘property’ is regarded as being the property of ‘the council’ – not the people’s or the Crown’s. 

The apparent albeit somewhat unforeseen risk is to do with the potential for the inappropriate dispersal or disposal of important cultural and scientific material. Why is this risk there? At its simplest, if there is a need to find ‘cash’ to meet some perception of a fiscal requirement, or some other imperative, then using the investment in ‘cultural material’ to fulfill such an aspiration may well come into play – and with legal effect under the Local Govt Act. 

Typically public museums and art galleries have rigorous collection policies designed to mitigate against this kind of outcome. However, this is not the case for museums and art galleries operating under the aegis of Tasmania’s Local Govt. Act 1993.

I submit that now is the appropriate time to address the issue of the security of Tasmania’s public collections and to ensure that 21st Century standards of accountability apply. 

In addition, there is a need to ensure that cultural sensibilities and sensitivities are actually applied to all of the state’s important museum and art gallery collections. This would especially be so in the context of what these collections have to offer Tasmania looking forward – especially so in concert with the TMAG collections.

These collections might well be better protected via an independent public inquiry commissioned to survey and interrogate the ‘public collections paradigm’ in Tasmania. Such an inquiry should involve appropriate evidence focused experts, the Auditor General, community representatives et al. It is of some importance that the NSW Govt. has initiated an inquiry, an Upper House Inquiry in fact, charged to inquire into NSW museums and art galleries’ governance and funding. That  inquiry’s report falls due Nov 14 2016 – see https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/committees/inquiries/Pages/inquiry-details.aspx?pk=2403#tab-timeline & http://nswmuseumsinquiry.blogspot.com.au/

I look forward to your response but most of all I look forward to the growth in importance of Tasmania’s museums and art galleries and the collections they hold.

Regards,

Ray Norman

eMAIL to Minister Gutwein 
RE: Tasmania’s Local Govt Act 1993 and Museum and Art Gallery Governance in Tasmania ... CLICK HERE 

eMAIL to Minister Goodwin
Tasmania’s Local Govt Act 1993 and Museum and Art Gallery Governance in Tasmania ... CLICK HERE

Ray Norman
<zingHOUSEunlimited>
The lifestyle design enterprise and research network

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

Nomenclature Alert And Producers Too!

Hello all,

Click Here: http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/vocational-loans-hit-list-revealed-jewellery-making-fitness-coaching-to-lose-support-20161009-gry4qe.html

If we ever needed evidence that it matters what you call something, and/or theorise about it, here we have it. You bet there’s been a lot of shonky stuff going on in vocational courses and you bet there’s been a shift towards ‘marketing’ these courses as ‘soft options’ to get their numbers up and get the required number of bums on seats.

Imagining ‘cultural production’ as being a lifestyle choice and analogous to ‘entertainment’ ultimately has its consequences.  In this headline once romantic imaginings and ideologies are coming home to roost – “decorative” translating as meaningless, superfluous or useless being a case in point.

SO, course designers, cultural theorists and the education/training bureaucracy alike need to look to the here-and-now of the ‘cultural realities’ in which they operate somewhat more than they are currently. Yesterday is not today. The imperatives of yesterday no longer need to be met in the way they once were. Dilettantism has much to answer for as do the interpreters who listened to the dilettantes, the wanabez, the neverwazerz, et al.

Simon Birmingham and his band of merry advisors haven’t got everything wrong albeit that they risk doing so via being blighted by their self belief and the ‘received wisdom’ of the past – its too late to retract it now. A great many stuffups ahead it would seem.

If one has a chance to tell a dilettante that they’ve stuffed it up we must take it every time – even when it was in the past. Their imagined world set in the past, of the past, is likely cost the future way too much.

Click Here: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/gretel-packer-david-gonski-join-sydneys-new-captains-of-culture-20161021-gs81ol.html

This MEGA BOARD is going to be interesting in so much as it will have so many dilettantes in the one room at once spending taxpayers money for government’s political imperatives rather than 'cultural' outcomes. The Americans call it "snowing them" and the "them" here is ever likely to be the cultural producers.

Cultural producers are a dangerous lot when empowered but when disempowered they can be equally dangerous. Mind you the 'never-wasers', 'might-have-beens' and the 'backroom-dilettantes' in the cultural institutions might now get the chance to float to the top much quicker in this environment.

On the face of it NSW, and perhaps Australia later on, is about to look back and seek to become more 'Menzian'. There's good and bad in everything but the last time I looked it was 2016 but there we go.

With a bucket of cash at their disposal this cabal of culture-vultures will be able dine well on the carcasses of NSW institutions with ‘the producers’ ever likely to provide the carrion. Watch out for the precedent this is likely to set!

Regards,

Ray

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

SEE: http://nswmuseumsinquiry.blogspot.com.au/

SEE:  http://letters7250.blogspot.com.au/

“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

AGAIN #2: Deaccession, standards, the value of things and accountability

For The Record
From: Ray Norman
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 09:41:36 +1100
To: Albert van Zetten <mayor@launceston.tas.gov.au>
Cc: Lisa Doolan <Lisa.Doolan@launceston.tas.gov.au>, "Vanessa Goodwin [Minister for the Arts]" <vanessa.goodwin@parliament.tas.gov.au>, "Peter Gutwein {Treasurer & Minister Local Govt.}" <peter.gutwein@parliament.tas.gov.au>, Will Hodgman <reception@tas.liberal.org.au>
Subject: Re: AGAIN: Deaccession, standards, the value of things and accountability

Dear Albert,

The reason I’ve written to you is because this issue is a ‘policy matter’ and not an ‘operational matter’ falling within the bailiwick of the General Manager. As Chairperson of the QVMAG’s governing body – the institution’s Trustees – it falls to you and the Aldermen to initiate and determine policy – plus oversee its implementation. The General Manager might well provide evidence of the expertise, ideally credentialed expertise, provided and relevant to the matters of concern here but it falls to you to comment upon, and defend if need be, policy matters.

That said, SECTION 65 of the Tasmanian Local Govt. Act 1993 does require/expect the General Manager to provide Aldermen with expert advice in regard to the determination of ‘policy decisions’. To refresh your memory of the Act says, I quote;

• “(1) A general manager must ensure that any advice, information or recommendation given to the council or a council committee is given by a person who has the qualifications or experience necessary to give such advice, information or recommendation…. (2) A council or council committee is not to decide on any matter which requires the advice of a qualified person without considering such advice unless the general manager certifies in writing that such advice was obtained and taken into account in providing general advice to the council or council committee.”
  

My concern here is the perceivable inadequacy of the QVMAG’s deaccession policy settings and arguably the lack of protection and accountability the policy affords to the institution’s Community of Ownership and Interests – ratepayers, taxpayers, donors, sponsors, et al.

As the leader of the QVMAG’s ‘governing body’ I put it to you that it falls to you, along with your fellow aldermen, to represent your constituency – not to mention the QVMAG’s constituency in Tasmania, Australia and internally . Moreover, it falls to you to protect the legitimate interests of your constituency and especially so in regard to what they have invested in the QVMAG’s collections – and have done now for over 125 years. I say again, this is a non-trivial matter and most importantly, a policy matter.

Ultimately, given the somewhat extraordinary time lapses involved, and evident in this case, and arguably others too, all this amounts to a break down in representational governance and its accountability. Indeed, your apparent disinclination to hold yourself, or by extension council, accountable is concerning. It’s especially so when so much is at risk – and likewise is at stake, fiscally, socially and culturally.

This matter by itself points to serious concerns relevant to ‘the governance’ of the QVMAG and the issue of accountability. In fact, as you are aware, the QVMAG’s governance, and its appropriateness, has been ongoing issue, and something of an ‘open sore’, for well over a decade.

Even when Council determines, as it has here a over year ago, that there’ll be a QVMAG governance body made up of appropriate experts, SECTION 62 (2) is apparently invoked – for bureaucratic convenience (?) – and the Aldermen’s/Trustee’s determinations apparently, on the evidence, become discretionary in regard to their application and/or urgency.

How might this be understood as representational accountability? Moreover, on what expert advice is being applied and relied upon in this circumstance – and whose? Indeed, how might the QVMAG in such circumstances be seen as anything other than a basically rudderless, self-assessing, cost centre with an annual $6 million recurrent budget?

Albert, I submit that it falls to you as Mayor on behalf of Council to deal with ‘policy matters’ albeit upon advice. Might I suggest in this case that you seek independent expert advice to assure yourself that Council is:

1. Applying the appropriate standards relevant to the representational governance of the QVMAG;
2. Operating with the advantage of appropriate expert advice in determining policy matters such as the accession and deaccession of items in QVMAG’s collections that are held in trust for ‘the public’; and
3. Complying with the intentions of, and in the spirit of, Tasmania’s Local Govt. Act as it currently stands.
   

In order to do so you may wish to consult with the State Govt’s relevant Ministers – Arts, Attorney General and Local Govt. – in regard to identifying appropriately qualified independent advisors. Despite apparent contrary advice, I submit that it is advisable that you do so and that you and the Aldermen/Trustees are entitled to seek independent advice. Moreover, I submit that you need to do so in order to satisfactorily bring to a conclusion the outstanding issue of the QVMAG governance in a 21st Century context plus meet Council’s representational governance obligations.

Regards,

Ray

Ray Norman
<zingHOUSEunlimited>
The lifestyle design enterprise and research network

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


CLICK HERE: http://www.launceston.tas.gov.au/lcc/index.php?c=69

LINK: http://nswmuseumsinquiry.blogspot.com.au/

“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
zHu Electronic Communications Policy. 

On 13/10/2016 1:42 pm, "Lisa Doolan" <Lisa.Doolan@launceston.tas.gov.au> wrote:

Dear Mr Norman,

I acknowledge and thank you for your email of 12th and 8th of October regarding the QVMAG deaccession policy.

I have forwarded this to the General Manager for comment.

Yours sincerely,

Albert van Zetten
MAYOR


Lisa Doolan, on behalf of the Mayor I City of Launceston
T 03 6323 3101 I www.launceston.tas.gov.au <http://www.launceston.tas.gov.au/>


From: Ray Norman 7250 [mailto:raynorman7250@bigpond.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 12 October 2016 3:45 PM
To: Mayor
Subject: AGAIN: Deaccession, standards, the value of things and accountability

Dear Albert,

I’ve been looking forward to your acknowledgement of my correspondence and/or your advice in regard to the status of the QVMAG deaccession policy in the broad context. In particular I have been looking  for some evidence that independent ‘expert advice’ has been sought by, offered to or provided to the Trustees/Aldermen in regard to this and/or related matters. Moreover, I was writing to you seeking  your advice in regard what standard/s are being applied in regard to this matter and in regard to collections under Council’s stewardship.

Given that it is reported that the QVMAG’s collections have been assessed to have a value in the order of $230 million, I put it to you that the stewardship falling to Aldermen/Trustees is serious, onerous and non-trivial. Nonetheless, it appears that you, and you on behalf of Council, are disinclined to either acknowledge that there is an issue deserving of your, or even Council’s, consideration or concern at this time. Likewise, it appears that you, and by extension Council, do not see this matter as being anything that’s worthy of your attention.

Therefore I believe that I’m entitled to characterise your/Council’s non-acknowledgement of my correspondence as Council’s acceptance of the status quo as being an example of best practice and offering a satisfactory level of accountability for a public collection held under Council’s stewardship.

Unless advised otherwise by you I will assume that I’m entitled hold and promote that point of view. I look forward to any advice you are able to offer in regard to this matter – to the contrary or otherwise.

Regards,

Ray
Ray Norman <zingHOUSEunlimited>
WEBsite: http://www.raynorman7250.blogspot.com


CLICK HERE: http://www.launceston.tas.gov.au/lcc/index.php?c=69


LINK: http://nswmuseumsinquiry.blogspot.com.au/

“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

Forwarded Message
From: Ray Norman 7250 <raynorman7250@bigpond.com>
Date: Sat, 08 Oct 2016 16:38:48 +1100
To: Albert van Zetten <mayor@launceston.tas.gov.au>, Richard Mulvaney <Richard.Mulvaney@launceston.tas.gov.au>
Subject: Deaccession, standards, the value of things and accountability

Dear Albert & Richard,

Reading yesterday’s reports via FACEbook under the headline “Painting Blue Poles, worth $350m, should be sold to reduce national debt: Senator James Paterson” – http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-07/government's-$350m-painting-'should-be-sold-to-reduce-debt'/7911882 – flushed to the surface my memories of the QVMAG’s so-called “Deaccession Policy” questionably embedded as it is within the QVMAG’s “Collection Policy” – http://www.qvmag.tas.gov.au/upfiles/qvmag/cont/artgallery/07pi011_collection_policy.pdf – and passed by Council June last year.

What I recall most of all was the vociferous protestations against any suggestion that the policy was in any way inadequate or that it failed ‘Best Practice Test’. As I recall it was deemed to be both best practice and appropriate to QVMAG’s needs.

Richard, you will recall it has been demonstrated that essentially the same deaccession and disposal processes allows, and has allowed, material in the QVMAG’s custody,  and under its stewardship, to be disposed of and unaccountably.  For evidence of my concern June last year I remind you of my Open Letter at the time – see – http://openletter7250-1qvmag.blogspot.com.au/2015/06/qvmag-policy-determination-monday-june.html

You may also recall, to allay the criticism of the so-called “new collection policy” passed by council, you, Richard, gave an undertaking to review that policy if it was found to be inadequate. To my knowledge this has not been done and the policy on the QVMAG Website is clearly the same dysfunctional policy that despite SECTION 65 of Tasmania’s Local Govt. Act 1993 shows no evidence of being framed within the context of “expert advice” - presumably that’s experts with credentials – as required by the Act. If it had been it would be reasonable to expect that ‘best practice’ would be reflected in the the policy and the consequent administrative processes – the latter lacks articulation.

Against this background, and on the available evidence, the QVMAG’s collections are as vulnerable as ever to inappropriate and unaccountable dispersals/deaccession as they were before the so-called policy review over a year ago now. This is very concerning and especially so as neither the Trusteess/Aldermen nor operational management have seen their way clear to address the inadequacies of the policy nor the evident lack relevant of expertise demonstrated in the policies as published on the QVMAG’s website.

I raise the ABC News item now as a demonstration of the potential for such things as ‘political interference’ and the consequent ‘vulnerability of’ cultural property in so-called public collections. It’s especially so in  regard to the cultural property held in ‘trust’ in the nation’s ‘public collections’ – the QVMAG’s collections among them.

I look forward to your advice in regard to this matter in a general sense and in regard to what ‘expert advice’ has been sought by, offered to or provided to the Trustees/Aldermen in regard to this and/or related matters in the light of national and interstate developments. Furthermore, I’d appreciate your advice in regard what standard/s are being applied in regard to this matter.

Regards,

Ray


Ray Norman
<zingHOUSEunlimited>
The lifestyle design enterprise and research network

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


CLICK HERE: http://www.launceston.tas.gov.au/lcc/index.php?c=69

LINK: http://nswmuseumsinquiry.blogspot.com.au/

“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
zHu Electronic Communications Policy. 

End

 <https://twitter.com/LtonCityCouncil>  <http://www.youtube.com/user/LauncestonCtyCouncil>  <http://www.launceston.tas.gov.au>  <http://yourvoiceyourlaunceston.com.au/>

Please consider the environment before printing this, or any other e-mail or document.

________________________________________
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER

Information in this transmission is intended only for the person(s) to whom it is addressed and may contain privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying or dissemination of the information is unauthorised and you should delete/destroy all copies and notify the sender. No liability is accepted for any unauthorised use of the information contained in this transmission.

This disclaimer has been automatically added.


------ End of Forwarded Message

AGAIN: Deaccession, standards, the value of things and accountability

Dear Albert,

I’ve been looking forward to your acknowledgement of my correspondence and/or your advice in regard to the status of the QVMAG deaccession policy in the broad context. In particular I have been looking  for some evidence that independent ‘expert advice’ has been sought by, offered to or provided to the Trustees/Aldermen in regard to this and/or related matters. Moreover, I was writing to you seeking  your advice in regard what standard/s are being applied in regard to this matter and in regard to collections under Council’s stewardship.

Given that it is reported that the QVMAG’s collections have been assessed to have a value in the order of $230 million, I put it to you that the stewardship falling to Aldermen/Trustees is serious, onerous and non-trivial. Nonetheless, it appears that you, and you on behalf of Council, are disinclined to either acknowledge that there is an issue deserving of your, or even Council’s, consideration or concern at this time. Likewise, it appears that you, and by extension Council, do not see this matter as being anything that’s worthy of your attention.

Therefore I believe that I’m entitled to characterise your/Council’s non-acknowledgement of my correspondence as Council’s acceptance of the status quo as being an example of best practice and offering a satisfactory level of accountability for a public collection held under Council’s stewardship.

Unless advised otherwise by you I will assume that I’m entitled hold and promote that point of view. I look forward to any advice you are able to offer in regard to this matter – to the contrary or otherwise.

Regards,

Ray

Ray Norman <zingHOUSEunlimited> PH: 03-6334 2176
EMAIL 1: raynorman7250@bigpond.com 40 Delamere Crescent Trevallyn TAS. 7250
WEBsite: http://www.raynorman7250.blogspot.com


CLICK HERE: http://www.launceston.tas.gov.au/lcc/index.php?c=69


LINK: http://nswmuseumsinquiry.blogspot.com.au/

“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

zHu Electronic Communications Policy.
This email is confidential, and is for the intended recipient only. Access, disclosure, copying, distribution, or reliance on any of it by anyone outside the intended recipients  is prohibited and may be a criminal offence. Please delete if obtained in error and email confirmation to the sender. The views expressed in this email are not necessarily the views of zingHOUSEunlimited, unless clearly intended otherwise.

Forwarded Message
From: Ray Norman 7250 <raynorman7250@bigpond.com>
Date: Sat, 08 Oct 2016 16:38:48 +1100
To: Albert van Zetten <mayor@launceston.tas.gov.au>, Richard Mulvaney <Richard.Mulvaney@launceston.tas.gov.au>
Subject: Deaccession, standards, the value of things and accountability

Dear Albert & Richard,

Reading yesterday’s reports via FACEbook under the headline “Painting Blue Poles, worth $350m, should be sold to reduce national debt: Senator James Paterson” – http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-07/government's-$350m-painting-'should-be-sold-to-reduce-debt'/7911882 – flushed to the surface my memories of the QVMAG’s so-called “Deaccession Policy” questionably embedded as it is within the QVMAG’s “Collection Policy” – http://www.qvmag.tas.gov.au/upfiles/qvmag/cont/artgallery/07pi011_collection_policy.pdf – and passed by Council June last year.

What I recall most of all was the vociferous protestations against any suggestion that the policy was in any way inadequate or that it failed ‘Best Practice Test’. As I recall it was deemed to be both best practice and appropriate to QVMAG’s needs.

Richard, you will recall it has been demonstrated that essentially the same deaccession and disposal processes allows, and has allowed, material in the QVMAG’s custody,  and under its stewardship, to be disposed of and unaccountably.  For evidence of my concern June last year I remind you of my Open Letter at the time – see – http://openletter7250-1qvmag.blogspot.com.au/2015/06/qvmag-policy-determination-monday-june.html

You may also recall, to allay the criticism of the so-called “new collection policy” passed by council, you, Richard, gave an undertaking to review that policy if it was found to be inadequate. To my knowledge this has not been done and the policy on the QVMAG Website is clearly the same dysfunctional policy that despite SECTION 65 of Tasmania’s Local Govt. Act 1993 shows no evidence of being framed within the context of “expert advice” - presumably that’s experts with credentials – as required by the Act. If it had been it would be reasonable to expect that ‘best practice’ would be reflected in the the policy and the consequent administrative processes – the latter lacks articulation.

Against this background, and on the available evidence, the QVMAG’s collections are as vulnerable as ever to inappropriate and unaccountable dispersals/deaccession as they were before the so-called policy review over a year ago now. This is very concerning and especially so as neither the Trusteess/Aldermen nor operational management have seen their way clear to address the inadequacies of the policy nor the evident lack relevant of expertise demonstrated in the policies as published on the QVMAG’s website.

I raise the ABC News item now as a demonstration of the potential for such things as ‘political interference’ and the consequent ‘vulnerability of’ cultural property in so-called public collections. It’s especially so in  regard to the cultural property held in ‘trust’ in the nation’s ‘public collections’ – the QVMAG’s collections among them.

I look forward to your advice in regard to this matter in a general sense and in regard to what ‘expert advice’ has been sought by, offered to or provided to the Trustees/Aldermen in regard to this and/or related matters in the light of national and interstate developments. Furthermore, I’d appreciate your advice in regard what standard/s are being applied in regard to this matter.

Regards,

Ray

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


CLICK HERE: http://www.launceston.tas.gov.au/lcc/index.php?c=69

LINK: http://nswmuseumsinquiry.blogspot.com.au/

“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

zHu Electronic Communications Policy.

This email is confidential, and is for the intended recipient only. Access, disclosure, copying, distribution, or reliance on any of it by anyone outside the intended recipients  is prohibited and may be a criminal offence. Please delete if obtained in error and email confirmation to the sender. The views expressed in this email are not necessarily the views of zingHOUSEunlimited, unless clearly intended otherwise.

End

FW: MUSEUM & ART GALLERY SUBMISSIONS ­ General Purpose Standing Committee No. 4

For The Record

Message

From: Merrin Thompson <Merrin.Thompson@parliament.nsw.gov.au>

Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2016 23:22:54 +0000

To: 'Ray Norman 7250' <raynorman7250@bigpond.com>

Cc: Shaza Barbar <Shaza.Barbar@parliament.nsw.gov.au>

Subject: RE: MUSEUM & ART GALLERY SUBMISSIONS ­ 

General Purpose Standing Committee No. 4

Thank you Ray.

Merrin
 
From: Ray Norman 7250 [mailto:raynorman7250@bigpond.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 16 August 2016 9:01 AM
To: GPSC4 GPSC4; Merrin Thompson
Cc: Prof. Bill Boyd; David Hansen[ANU]; Treva Alen [nudgelbah]
Subject: MUSEUM & ART GALLERY SUBMISSIONS ­ General Purpose Standing Committee No. 4

Good morning Merrin,

As discussed please find below the links the submissions complete with summaries. As requested I have deactivated the links to the submission on the [NSW]MAAGIblog and I will reactivate them once The Inquiry publishes submissions. However, in the meantime I’ll be making copies available to researchers and others in my network.

I’ll be refining the [NSW]MAAGIblog shortly and the links available on it. I will include you in the notifications. Thank you for you assistance thus far.

Regards,

Ray

SUBMISSION #1
FUNDING MUSEUMS ART GALLERIES,
HERITAGE BUILDINGS AND
THEIR COLLECTIONS
http://nswmuseumsinquiry.blogspot.com.au/p/funding-museums-art-galleries-and.html

SUBMISSION #2
REIMAGINING THE POWERHOUSE
COLLECTION AND ITS GOVERNANCE
http://nswmuseumsinquiry.blogspot.com.au/p/reimagining-powerhouse-collection-and.html

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

LINK: http://nswmuseumsinquiry.blogspot.com.au/

“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 

zHu Electronic Communications Policy. 

This email is confidential, and is for the intended recipient only. Access, disclosure, copying, distribution, or reliance on any of it by anyone outside the intended recipients  is prohibited and may be a criminal offence. Please delete if obtained in error and email confirmation to the sender. The views expressed in this email are not necessarily the views of zingHOUSEunlimited, unless clearly intended otherwise. 

End of Message

FTR: The City of Launceston's Delegated Authorities

FTR
From: Launceston Projects
Sent: Thursday, 8 September 2016 9:17 AM
To: Albert van Zetten; Council
Cc: Robert Dobrzynski; Peter Gutwein
Subject: The City of Launceston's Delegated Authorities

Dear Albert and Aldermen,

Since it has been some time now, and that I’ve received no information to the contrary, I’m left with the proposition that the City of Launceston is very comfortable with its record of the city’s Register of Delegated Authorities – namely the one sold to me as such. Moreover, this seems to be so despite it apparently being the least possible record that might be ‘deemed’ to qualify to be the register required under the Act.

On August 29 you informed me that my comments will be given due attention at Council officers earliest convenience – and not yet it seems. This seems to leave the credibility of the register in limbo at least. Would this be so despite it being an important record against which Council may be called upon to rely if the veracity of SECTION 65 of the Act is ever challenged or is deemed challengeable?

Also, rather than being an operational matter as you seem to imply, is this in fact a governance matter and consequently requiring the attention of the elected representatives – the Aldermen?

I have written to the Minister for Local Government alerting him to what I perceive to be issues that challenge the CoL Register of Delegated Authorities. To reiterate ...” Indeed, what purports to be the City of Launceston’s Register of Delegated Authorities:

1. Carries no imprimatur that unambiguously identifies the ‘delegation’ with the City of Launceston;
2. Carries no date or other identifiable information that links it to, and lends veracity to, the delegation’s appropriate delegator – open Council meeting, or other;
3. Carries no recital of the delegation thus failing to provide delegations with ‘context and meaning’;
4. Does not identify the person/people to whom an authority to act has been delegated thus rendering the delegation somewhat ambiguous –and arguably compromised ultimately.
   

Moreover, the register is not freely available for public scrutiny say on the Council’s Website. In 2016 this seems to suggest that public scrutiny is not only unwelcomed but also to be discouraged. .... SEE SAMPLES HERE – http://images7250.blogspot.com.au/2016/08/delegated-authorities-samples.html” <http://images7250.blogspot.com.au/2016/08/delegated-authorities-samples.html>  

It appears to be the case that  the city’s elected representatives, as has been put to me, “lacks the ticker to take on management and govern”. This raises the question, are the Aldermen prepared to accept management’s deemings as being sufficient even when the evidence might seem to be otherwise?  For instance, is this record/register of delegations an exemplar of ‘best practice’ or ‘the minimum required’ or ‘deemed adequate’ or ‘just what the Act requires’?. Whatever it is there are consequences.

For instance, at each Council meeting Aldermen are informed that the decisions they will be making are in accord with “Section 65 of the Local Government Act 1993” which calls upon  “the General Manager to certify that any advice, information or recommendation given to Council is provided by a person with appropriate qualifications or experience” ... and moreover to certify ...  “that persons with appropriate qualifications and experience have provided the advice, information and recommendations given to Council in the Agenda Items for [the] Meeting.”

Consequent to the above the following questions arise:

1. If the register of delegated authorities is not backed up by documentation of the ‘experience and appropriate qualifications’ of the person’s/people’s experience and qualifications might it be the case, by extension, the trust/investment in the advice be misplaced?
2. Furthermore, what would inhibit Council  openly publishing the qualifications and appropriate experience of the ‘experts’ upon whose advice Council relies in its decision making?
3. If there is nothing to hide why make every attempt to hide it or keep it from the ‘public gaze’?
4. Are constituents interests being well served or served well enough?
5. In the event of some kind of challenge to Council’s responsibility for some adverse outcome or other, and the authority of a Council officer is challenged, and it is found to be inadequate or ambiguous, where might this leave Council’s constituency?
   

I pose these questions in the context of recently published DPAC Good Governance Guide – http://www.dpac.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/271170/Good_Governance_Guide_May_2016.pdf  – and Council’s own Organisational Values.

I look forward with interest to receiving Council’s advice in regard to this matter.

Regards,

Ray

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


CLICK HERE: http://www.launceston.tas.gov.au/lcc/index.php?c=69

“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
zHu Electronic Communications Policy.

This email is confidential, and is for the intended recipient only. Access, disclosure, copying, distribution, or reliance on any of it by anyone outside the intended recipients  is prohibited and may be a criminal offence. Please delete if obtained in error and email confirmation to the sender. The views expressed in this email are not necessarily the views of zingHOUSEunlimited, unless clearly intended otherwise.

--------------------------------------------------
From: Launceston Projects <launcestonprojects@bigpond.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2016 10:56:17 +1000
To: Robert Dobrzynski <Robert.Dobrzynski@launceston.tas.gov.au>
Cc: Albert van Zetten <mayor@launceston.tas.gov.au>, John Davis <John.Davis@launceston.tas.gov.au>
Subject: FW: Delegated Authorities

Good morning Robert,

I’ve had a query in regard to this email below that I just cannot answer either to myself or to anyone based on the evidence. The question being, at what point is the Local Government Act a trigger for delivery upon, by default(?) the “lowest possible standards” despite what’s set out in the DPAC Good Governance Guide – http://www.dpac.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/271170/Good_Governance_Guide_May_2016.pdf. – and despite the availability of efficiency dividends that allow for the raising of standards – For instance when its Council’s role, by default(?) to “promote accountability, transparency, efficiency and effectiveness”.... and it being ... “not only important [for Council] to understand [its] role, it is important to understand the role of others”.

I look forward to any information you are able to provide and/or any light that you might be able to throw on this matter to put Council’s response below into context.

Regards,

Ray
Ray Norman <zingHOUSEunlimited> PH: 03-6334 2176  EMAIL 1: raynorman7250@bigpond.com 40 Delamere Crescent Trevallyn TAS. 7250
WEBsite: http://www.raynorman7250.blogspot.com
CLICK HERE: http://www.launceston.tas.gov.au/lcc/index.php?c=69
LINK: http://nswmuseumsinquiry.blogspot.com.au/

“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
zHu Electronic Communications Policy.
This email is confidential, and is for the intended recipient only. Access, disclosure, copying, distribution, or reliance on any of it by anyone outside the intended recipients  is prohibited and may be a criminal offence. Please delete if obtained in error and email confirmation to the sender. The views expressed in this email are not necessarily the views of zingHOUSEunlimited, unless clearly intended otherwise.
------------------------------------------------
Message
From: Lisa Doolan <Lisa.Doolan@launceston.tas.gov.au>
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2016 00:43:56 +0000
To: Ray Norman 7250 <raynorman7250@bigpond.com>
Subject: RE:Delegated Authorities and Discrimination.

Dear Ray,
 
I acknowledge your correspondence and your comments will be given due attention at Council officers earliest convenience.
 
Yours sincerely,
 
Albert van Zetten
MAYOR

Lisa Doolan, Executive Assistant to the Mayor I City of Launceston
T 03 6323 3101 I www.launceston.tas.gov.au <http://www.launceston.tas.gov.au/>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Forwarded Message
From: John Davis <John.Davis@launceston.tas.gov.au>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 03:04:48 +0000
To: "Ray Norman 7250 (raynorman7250@bigpond.com)" <raynorman7250@bigpond.com>
Subject: FW: Delegated Authorities

Good afternoon Mr Norman
 
The Delegations Register is not on the website and not required to be under the Act. If you would like to inspect the register please let me know and I will arrange a time to make it available to you at the Council's Customer Service Centre.
 
Regards
John
 
John Davis I Manager Corporate Strategy I City of Launceston
P 03 6323 3314 I www.launceston.tas.gov.au <http://www.launceston.tas.gov.au>
 
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ray Norman 7250 [mailto:raynorman7250@bigpond.com]
Sent: Monday, 11 July 2016 11:27 AM
To: John Davis
Cc: Mayor; Launceston Projects
Subject: Re: Delegated Authorities

Good morning John,

Thank you for your email. Where  my research is currently taking me is to do with:

• The number of Delegated Authorities Council has on record and has authorised;
• The scope of the Delegated Authorities in the jurisdiction;
• The nature of Launceston’s Delegated Authorities; and where possible and/or appropriate,
• The professional qualifications of personnel holding Delegated Authorities.
  

I’m quite aware that all this information will not be available via the list of Delegated Authorities but quite a bit of it will be I’m sure.

When we were discussing this matter some time/years ago I think that you advised me that Launceston was intending to follow the example  of other adjoining jurisdictions and post this information on its website. With this in mind I went looking on the Council website to find that this hadn’t happened yet.

So, to answer your request I’d have to say that I’m looking for the entire list. For the sake of expediency, efficiency and transparency, might it not be best to actually lodge that information on the Council website as indicated earlier?

If you have an alternative suggestion please let me know.
Regards,

Ray
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

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 11/07/2016 9:12 am, "John Davis" <John.Davis@launceston.tas.gov.au> wrote:

Good morning Mr Norman
 
Could you please advise which delegations you are specifically seeking and I will provide them for you.
 
Regards
John
 
John Davis I Manager Corporate Strategy I City of Launceston
P 03 6323 3314 I www.launceston.tas.gov.au <http://www.launceston.tas.gov.au> <http://www.launceston.tas.gov.au>
 
--------------------------------------------------
From: Ray Norman 7250 [mailto:raynorman7250@bigpond.com]
Sent: Friday, 8 July 2016 11:29 AM
To: Robert Dobrzynski
Subject: Delegated Authorities

Dear Robert,

The issue of Delegated Authorities for Launceston has arisen again. I’ve done a search on Council’s website and was unable to locate anything that looked like it would provide anything like a list of Delegated Authorities.

Can you please advise me of the best, or most appropriate, way that that I might currently acquire a complete list of Launceston’s Delegated Authorities.

Regards,

Ray

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
END



------ End of Forwarded Message