FW: SOLARenergy For QVMAG??

For the record

 

From: Ray Norman
Date: Wednesday, 22 November 2017 at 11:25 am
To: Richard Mulvaney
Cc: Ian Norton
Subject: SOLARenergy For QVMAG??

 

Good morning!

 

A snap shot of my SOLARproduction for Nov 9 is below and you will see on that day I exported approx. 25 kWhs to the grid. What the graphic doesn't tell you is how much energy we produced relative to our hot water supply. Nonetheless, because I've not yet bought a battery I'm spending about $25 per week on electricity, a tiny fraction of what I was spending this time last year. This has been a research project for me in the face of being told "solar is inappropriate for your property". You'll see that the placement of my array is less than 'ideal' but there you go.

 

What has this to do with QVMAG? Well can you imagine:

• What a live report of QVMAG generated energy might look like?
• Where and how it might be presented to QVMAG visitors and the institutions Community of Ownership & Interest?
• What the 100kW capacity institution is about to have might impact upon the communities funding the QVMAG?
• What example the institution might be setting if it was to be proactively presenting its energy generation outcomes?
• What the operational impact might be if people like me were able feed our excess energy to the QVMAG?
• Indeed, what the impact might be IF 100 households like my own were to be able feed their excess power to the QVMAG?

And there are more questions flowing from these if you can imagine that.

 

None of this is rocket science but I can imagine a whole lot of BUREAUCRATIChumbug that might get in the way of answering questions like these or even being open to them being addressed. Would this be an inappropriate observation?

 

Nonetheless, daily, I see evidence of the kind of 'outside-the-box thinking' that says "let's have a go."  Is there a simple answer as to how, and why, the QVMAG might want to join the ranks of entrepreneurial thinkers looking at energy production? Alternatively, is there such an answer as to why it is not possible, or appropriate, to move in this direction – and now?

 

I pose these questions to you in the context that you are, apparently, the only person to whom I can address such questions. Given the potential for the QVMAG to be a component of, and a contributor to, renewable energy generation in Launceston I'd be very interested in your response to any of what I'm putting to you here.

 

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

 

 

 

RECORD: QUESTIONS FOR LAUNCESTON COUNCIL OCTOBER 2 2017

https://www.facebook.com/george.burrows.75/posts/10214120389861609?comment_id=10214120649908110&notif_id=1506899682804176&notif_t=feed_comment_reply

QUESTIONS FOR LAUNCESTON COUNCIL OCTOBER 2 2017
NB: LCC Aldermen are the QVMAG's Trustees by default

The General Manager Dobrzynski has made a number of assertions and presumably relying upon the provisions of SECTION 62 of the Local Govt. Act, namely that he has the authority "to manage all assets and human resources of the Council and to do anything necessary or convenient to affect such purpose." I believe that the assertions he has makes are contestable and that should be tested. I ask the questions here in that context.

Question 1.
Context: The General Manager has advised me that, "Trustees to manage the QVMAG could only occur if the Council transferred all its QVMAG assets to such trustees. Failing this occurring, all QVMAG assets fall under the authority of the General Manager." He does not say who has provided this advice nor, apparently, does he accept that it is what it is "advice and only advice". I have received alternative advice that suggests that there is a range of options open to Council to establish a purposeful standalone entity to govern and manage the QVMAG. That is, something Council determined that it wished to do August 2015.

Questions:
Have you as aldermen in your roles as community representatives and the 'default trustees' tested the advice that has apparently been provided to you by the General Manager under the provisions of SECTION 65 of the Local Govt Act?

• Have you as aldermen in your 'trusteeship' roles sought independent advice in regard to these roles given all that is at risk and at stake?
• Have you as aldermen in your 'trusteeship' roles been given direct access to the advice the General Manager apparently relies upon under SECTIONS 65 & 62 of the Local Govt. Act?

Question 2.
Context: There is no longer any real doubt in Tasmania in regard to 'cultural tourism' and the value it represents in regard to employment and income opportunities for communities across the State. The TMAG, MONA and the many 'musingplaces' across Tasmania have demonstrated that there is almost no part of local economies that cultural tourism doesn't impact upon – and it importance.

• Questions:
  Have you as aldermen considered cultural tourism's impact upon and the importance to the Tamar region, and Launceston specifically, and in an ongoing way, to the economic, social and cultural wellbeing of your constituencies?
• If you have either individually or collectively done so, what form has it taken and how has it manifested itself in the 'policy settings' you as aldermen have put in place and/or championed?
• Indeed, how often, when and in what context have you as aldermen and default trustees made determinations that have been acted upon, and are there to be acted upon, in accord with Council's purpose – namely, to provide for the health, safety and welfare of the community; to represent the interests of the community; to provide for the peace, order and good government of the municipal area?

Question 3.
Context: There is some evidence, albeit scant, that the General Manager is developing "Cultural Strategy" and that this is taking place in virtual isolation from the 'constituency'. There is little doubt that such an exercise is significant, relevant and timely. Moreover, Launceston and the Tamar region arguably exists within a 'cultural reality' that is distinct in both a Tasmanian and national context.

• Questions:
  Have you as aldermen been involved in developing the brief for the consultant/s(?) and if so to what extent and at what point?
• Has there been a 'unit' of some kind established and if so what is its specific purpose and objectives and what personnel have been employed from within what budget?
• Moreover, what are the duty statements for personnel thus far engaged?
  Have you as aldermen either provided or endorsed a project budget for this initiative?
• When and how is it intended that there will be community consultation given that it is Launceston's 'communities cultures' that are the subject of any research involved and them who will be funding the process?
• When did the process commence and when is it due to be completed?
• If any of the information relative to the questions above are confidential, why would that be?

Question 4.
Context: There is increasing evidence that corporations, organisations, institutions, etc. are coming under closer scrutiny and especially so in regard to their governance and management. Nationally and intrastate most recently Sydney's Powerhouse Museum and the Australian Olympic Committee stand out. Likewise, the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery's governance and management won the critical attention of Tasmania's Auditor General and this has brought about major changes in that institution's personnel, operation and performance. It is clear that past 'bureaucratic elasticities' abided in these quasi 'public' organisations isn't being tolerated in the ways it has been in the past.

Questions: 

• Have you as aldermen initiated any kind reporting protocols to enable you to effectively review the QVMAG as a component of Council's operation given the value/s of, and the nature of, its collections and the significance of the QVMAG's recurrent expenditures?

• Are you as aldermen completely satisfied that QVMAG operation is fulfilling its strategic purpose and has be
• Are you as aldermen completely satisfied that the QVMAG's metrics reflect the appropriate outcomes for such an institution in a 21st C context given the levels of public investment in it over an extended period?
• Are you as aldermen completely satisfied that QVMAG operation is adequately resourced to succeed as vital cultural institution with 'social license' to deliver the social, cultural and 'trickle down' fiscal dividends it has the potential to do? 

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

RE: Towards a Cultural Strategy for Launceston

Good afternoon John,

 

Your response to my request is somewhat curious given the answers the aldermen have provided to my questions and that are recorded in the agenda papers for day's Council meeting.

 

To put this in context I quote "Question 4: Have you as aldermen considered cultural tourism's impact upon and the importance to the Tamar region, and Launceston specifically, and in an ongoing way, to the economic, social and cultural wellbeing of your constituencies? 

Response: Yes. The General Manager presented a landmark report to Open Council on 24 April 2017 entitled Towards a Cultural Strategy for Launceston that contained numerous recommendations and set out the framework for the work that is currently being undertaken". 

 

This poses a number of questions not the least questions to do with the integrity of Council's relationship with the QVMAG's Community of Ownership & Interest (stakeholders et al) and/or the veracity of information provided to a ratepayer. My questions were posed in good faith.

 

I draw your attention to Council's "Vision, Mission & Values": https://www.launceston.tas.gov.au/Council/Our-Vision-Mission-and-Values. I look forward to receiving any further information that you may be able to provide 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

 

"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

 

From: John Davis <John.Davis@launceston.tas.gov.au>
Date: Monday, 16 October 2017 10:35 am
To: Ray Norman <raynorman7250@bigpond.com>
Subject: RE: Towards a Cultural Strategy for Launceston

 

Good morning Ray

 

The interim report has been prepared as was highlighted in Robert's report. This is not a publicly available document. My understanding is that the final report will be presented to Council when it is completed.

 

Regards

John

 

John Davis I Manager Corporate Strategy I City of Launceston
P 03 6323 3314 I www.launceston.tas.gov.au

 

From: Ray Norman [mailto:raynorman7250@bigpond.com]
Sent: Sunday, 15 October 2017 8:33 PM
To: John Davis
Subject: Towards a Cultural Strategy for Launceston

 

Good morning,

 

It would be very much appreciated if you could locate this document and ether send me the URL OR the document as an attachment. Given that was presented in Open Council I'm assuming that it is available albeit a search does not turn it up, at least for me.

 

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

 

 

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.

FW: PARTNERSHIPS ?

FOR THE RECORD

 

From: Launceston Projects <launcestonprojects@bigpond.com>
Date: Monday, 21 November 2016 8:33 am
To: Albert van Zetten <mayor@launceston.tas.gov.au>, Council <records@launceston.tas.gov.au>
Cc: "Peter Gutwein {Treasurer & Minister Local Govt.}" <peter.gutwein@parliament.tas.gov.au>, "Vanessa Goodwin [Minister for the Arts]" <vanessa.goodwin@parliament.tas.gov.au>
Subject: PARTNERSHIPS ?

 

Dear Albert,

I write to you in your capacity as the Chairperson of the QVMAG Trustees, and to the Aldermen/Trustees, to draw your collective attentions to this media release that's just been forwarded to me and that is attached below.

A search of the City's Media Releases –http://www.launceston.tas.gov.au/lcc/index.php?c=402&amp;langID=1&#8211; –  and the QVMAG's Website reveals no similar initiative for the QVMAG – recently or indeed ever. This is disappointing given that UTAS is the recipient of a more than considerable amount of largess from Launceston's citizens in the form of land grants and sponsorship gifts – so so many free kicks. Disappointingly, UTAS in the light of all this has not seen its way clear to initiate partnership arrangements with the QVMAG albeit that there would be mutual advantages in doing so.

The TMAG has clearly been proactive in the initiation of the partnership announced in the media release yet by comparison the QVMAG with its collections reportedly valued at $230million plus and an annual recurrent budget hovering around $6million apparently makes no comparable effort to deliver the outcomes the TMAG is working so diligently towards for the benefit of Tasmanians – and looking forward, to the benefit of cultural tourism in the state.

Tasmania's taxpayers contribute significantly towards the QVMAG's recurrent operational costs as you are well aware. Also, Launceston's ratepayers are all conscripted to contribute something in the order of $140 per rateable property as you are also well aware. Moreover, individuals and groups make substantial donations in cash and in-kind to the QVMAG towards building its collections and delivering programs. The significance of the QVMAG is not in question but its outcomes might well be.

Consequently, and unsurprisingly, the questions to do with 'dividends-in-return' loom large when comparing the proaction of the TMAG to the apparent lack of such activity in regard to the QVMAG. As it would be expected I lay the responsibility for this at the door of the QVMAG's governance as it is policy issue rather than an 'operational matter'. Also, its a matter of accountability!

Backgrounding my concern here is the new legislation pertaining to the governance of the TMAG currently in draft form. It is excellent legislation and sets standards that are achievable by the QVMAG but sadly the QVMAG is not covered by it or, it would seem, not disposed towards meeting such standards. I have written to the Premier et al on this matter and you can see a copy of my correspondence here – http://letters7250.blogspot.com.au/2016/11/draft-tasmanian-museum-art-gallery.html.

It is sometimes said that the two institutions are not comparable (QVMAG & TMAG) but such assertions are unsustainable. Both are somewhat unusually a combination of 'museum' and 'art gallery' but more to the point they themselves compare and contrast their activities but rarely collaborate. Arguably, this is to do with the contrasting governance of the two institutions. Clearly, the losers here are Tasmania's taxpayer and Launceston's ratepayers – and by extension both institutions' donors and sponsors.

Given that it is now well over a year since the Council/Trustees determined, presumably on "expert advice" provided by the general manager in accord with SECTION 65 of the Local Govt. Act 1993, when do you anticipate that the Council's/Trustee's determination made in August 2015 will be implemented?

In asking this I'm mindful of SECTION 62(2) of the Local Govt. Act in that it affords the general manager an extraordinary license of "convenience".  Nonetheless, I ask:

1. What is seen as being an/the inhibitor (inconvenient?) in regard to implementing the Council's/Trustees' determination?
2. What might be holding up the Council's /Trustee's seeing their determination implemented if it is not seen that the advice has been found wanting?
3. If so, what is being done to rectify the situation against the likely community concern that the QVMAG is faltering operationally and is reportedly losing staff?

I look forward to the acknowledgement of your receipt of this correspondence in the near future. Likewise, I'd also appreciate your advice in regard to my best course of action in regard to receiving informed and fulsome answers to the questions raised here. For instance, do I need to put these questions to open council?  

I look forward to your advice and to answers to my questions in due course.

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.

___________________________________________
Forwarded Message
From: Launceston PR <launcestonpr@bigpond.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2016 15:44:13 +1100
To: Launceston Projects <launcestonprojects@bigpond.com>
Subject: UTAS & TMAG PARTNERSHIP
http://www.media.utas.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/909371/Uni-TMAG-Partnership.pdf

.....

FW: Draft Tasmanian Museum & Art Gallery Legislation

FOR THE RECORD

 

From: Ray Norman 7250 <raynorman7250@bigpond.com>
Date: Monday, 14 November 2016 1:10 pm
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>
Subject: Draft Tasmanian Museum & Art Gallery Legislation

 

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 & ttp://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

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

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.

FW: AGAIN: Delegated Authorities At LCC

FOR THE RECORD

 

From: Ray Norman <raynorman7250@bigpond.com>
Date: Wednesday, 6 September 2017 5:34 pm
To: Mayor <Mayor@launceston.tas.gov.au>
Subject: Re: AGAIN: Delegated Authorities At LCC

 

Dear Albert,

 

Thank for your response. There appears to be some confusion as the General Manager did provide the information I requested in regard to Delegated Authorities. However, I've not had a response to my email Wednesday, 30 August 2017 8:06 am Subject: File Access and recent correspondence.

 

It may be the case however that you are referring to my correspondence to yourself and aldermen dated; Date: Monday, 28 August 2017 3:10 pm, Subject: QUESTIONS ON NOTICE: Launceston City Council?  You will note that I enlisted the support of Mr. Fitch who resubmitted that the questions to Council at its last meeting after it was indicated to me that they would not be put to Council as addressed.

 

Are you indeed referring to that correspondence?

 

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

                                                      

 

                                     

 

From: Lisa Doolan <Lisa.Doolan@launceston.tas.gov.au>
Date: Wednesday, 6 September 2017 3:10 pm
To: Ray Norman 7250 <raynorman7250@bigpond.com>
Subject: RE: AGAIN: Delegated Authorities At LCC

 

Dear Ray,

 

Thank you for your email.

 

The General Manager responded to your last email advising that he would not be responding to repeated questions on matters that have already been addressed in correspondence to you. You have been previously advised regarding all of the matters in your recent correspondence and I have nothing further to add.

 

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

 

From: Ray Norman 7250 [mailto:raynorman7250@bigpond.com]
Sent: Thursday, 24 August 2017 4:14 PM
To: Mayor
Subject: AGAIN: Delegated Authorities At LCC

 

Dear Albert,

My records show that I've not yet received either a response or an acknowledgment in regard to this correspondence.

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

Forwarded Message
From: Ray Norman 7250 <raynorman7250@bigpond.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2017 15:42:31 +1000
To: Council <records@launceston.tas.gov.au>, Robert Dobrzynski <Robert.Dobrzynski@launceston.tas.gov.au>, Albert van Zetten <mayor@launceston.tas.gov.au>
Cc: "Peter Gutwein {Treasurer & Minister Local Govt.}" <peter.gutwein@parliament.tas.gov.au>
Subject: Delegated Authorities At LCC

Dear Mayor, Aldermen and General Manager,
 
As you are aware I've been using Launceston as a case study within a research project that I'm doing in regard to 'place, placemaking and placescaping'. Arguably, this is the fundamental and overarching function of Local Govt.

Also, you might remember that I've taken an interest in the notion of 'Delegated Authorities' in regard to that investigation and that I've raised questions in regard to this matter in the past.
 
When I was eventually able to secure a copy of Launceston Council's Delegated Authorities it became clear that for whatever reason these authorities are/were granted to positions rather than to individual people. At the time I asked why this might be so and I have no record of an answer. Therefore I'm now asking:

• Does it remain the case that the delegation of authorities at Launceston City Council is assigned to a position/post and not an individual?

 

• If the assignment remains as being to a post/position, how does council, the aldermen collectively, assure itself that the person has the skills, qualifications and/or experience that would warrant them holding the particularly authority?

 

• What is the current practice employed in regard to the delegation of authorities and when was it last used?

I look forward to Council's advice on this matter given its impact upon aldermen's access to expert advice under SECTION 65 of Tasmania's Local Govt. Act 1993.

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.

 

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.

QVMAG Governance, Accountability & Cultural Tourism

Dear Mayor, Aldermen and General Manager,
 
I write to remind you that it is now two years since Council determined in open Council and at the end of a process that explored various options, Council determined that the Queen Victoria Museum & Art Gallery (QVMAG) was to have a standalone board of  management cum governance body. Clearly that was Council playing its role as a 'policy determiner' in regard to the QVMAG and historically something Launceston Councils over time have done very little in regard to. Also, to my knowledge the determination made August 2015 has not been rescinded and thus stands as Council policy albeit not acted upon.
 
Since that time Council's Management has apparently operated under the guidance of SECTION 62 of the Local Govt. Act and the general manager's powers set out there, namely "The general manager may do anything necessary or convenient to perform his or her functions under this or any other Act." On the evidence the general manager has not found it 'convenient' to put a Council policy determination in place and into practice. Given all that is at stake, and indeed all that is at risk, this is  more than unfortunate and especially so in regard to the best practice governance and management of the QVMAG.
 
Aldermen are the QVMAG's Trustees (Governors) yet it is now legendary that QVMAG matters almost never appear on Council’s agendas to be discussed in open council in accord with the QVMAG's 'purpose for being' and in accord with Council's accountability to the institution's funders, Community of Interest and stakeholders – State Govt., ratepayers, donors, sponsors et al.  

This is not because, as it appears that the general manager has apparently determined, there is no need for the institution's 'Trustees' to determine and review the institution's:

• Purpose for being and the currency of its objectives;
• Funding relative to its programming and infrastructure needs;
• Policy matters – collection policies, programming priorities, research priorities, etc;
• Strategic planning in regard to the institution's ongoing operation and management; and
• Appoint and/or confirm the appointment of appropriate personnel with appropriate expertise as required.
  

Rather, the contrary is the case and on the evidence management has blurred the function and roles of governance and management and arguably to the detriment of the QVMAG as an institution not to mention Council’s constituency.

Interestingly, today we see in the press this situation being articulated out loud in regard to the Australian Olympic Committee’s disconnections between governance and management and the bullying plus other negative impacts that have resulted in documented and unsatisfactory outcomes. SEE http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/olympics-2016/aoc-to-release-findings-of-workplace-culture-review-in-wake-of-bullying-claims/news-story/0a96909449db80a7fa82cea32f39cca0

The situation set out here in regard to the QVMAG is non-trivial, given all the implied risks. Moreover the situation is arguably unsustainable. So what is actually at risk?

• The QVMAG collections are valued at something in the order of $230million plus and they represent a significant component of what might be understood as 'The National Estate';
• The social and cultural dividends expected as a consequence of the annual 'levied' investment of approx. $4million by Launceston ratepayers – Approx $150 per ratable property and approx 10% of many properties’ rate bill ;
• The social and cultural dividends expected as a consequence of the annual State Govt. investment of $1.3million plus towards recurrent costs;
• The programming relevant to appropriate community cultural and social dividends;
• The full and part-time employment of something in the order of 60 people (47EFT) with its consequent 'trickledown effect' many/most of whom would not otherwise find employment in the region/State(?);
• Social, scientific and cultural research opportunities relative the Tamar Region and Tasmania and the consequent new knowledge and new understandings that flow from that and that in turn deliver commensurate dividends.
  

Against this background it is clear that the institution is virtually rudderless in regard to its accountable operation and in the clear sight of 'The Trustees' who have, arguably, 'been looking the other way'.
 
Of course, due to the professionalism of key people on the QVMAG's staff, the institution has been able to survive and function, albeit in a limited way, in this undeniably flawed circumstance. However, the institution's ability to succeed in ways relative to the short and long term investments in QVMAG infrastructure, programming, collections and personnel is without a doubt seriously reduced. In addition, by now you would all be aware of the extent that 'cultural tourism' is currently impacts upon the Tasmanian economy as extraction and manufacturing industries' impacts wane.       

References
https://livestream.com/UniversityofTasmania/events/7641415/videos/160984982 .
 http://tourismandculture7250.blogspot.com.au/

More to the point the institution is in an inferior position than otherwise should be the case. In 21st Century context 20th Century status quoism should not be tolerated given all that is at risk and at stake given the level of investment in the institution over 125 years by Launcestonian, Tasmanians and others.
 
Plainly the QVMAG's governance and management operating model is no longer fit for purpose or relevant to its current circumstances. Plainly Council aldermen, as the institution's 'Trustees', for multiple reasons, have not functioned adequately or have withdrawn from their ‘trusteeship’ role for all practical purposes for whatever reason. This has been the case for quite some time.
 
It has been drawn to my attention that Robin Archer has been appointed as a consultant in some kind of 'cultural context'. I've asked several times for a copy of her brief and/or the report that she has apparently produced and for unfathomable reasons I've been informed that they have both been deemed "confidential by the general manger". SEE Previous Correspondence – http://letters7250.blogspot.com.au/2017/05/launcestons-cultural-strategy.html Consequently, I along with other constituents, have been unable to fully contextualise any of this relative to the circumstances I lay out here. Suffice to say all this is as mystifying to me and others as it must be if the QVMAG's funders reviewing their QVMAG investment, contribution or support.
 
It is evident that you as 'Trustees' have allowed this state of affairs to arise. It is also clear that all this represents a scenario where accountability has been deemed to be discretionary by the general manager under the auspices of SECTION 62 of the Act. If allowed to persist there is little doubt that significant failures are at risk of arising.

For the duration of the general manager’s tenure the governance and accountability of the as is evidenced by by this OPEN LETTER dated August 2010 has been a serious and ongoing concern. SEE http://www.tasmaniantimes.com.au/index.php/pr-article/open-letter-the-queen-victoria-museum-and-art-gallery

I look forward to your response at your earliest convenience given the seriousness of this matter and all that is at risk.

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://www.dpac.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/271170/Good_Governance_Guide_May_2016.pdf

“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.