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 Also, to my knowledge the determination made August 2015 has not been rescinded and thus stands as Council policy albeit not acted upon.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.

FW: AGAIN: Delegated Authorities At LCC

From: Ray Norman 7250 <raynorman7250@bigpond.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2017 16:14:04 +1000
To: Albert van Zetten <mayor@launceston.tas.gov.au>
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.

------ End of Forwarded Message

FW: Launceston's Cultural Strategy - Discussion Paper

For The Record
From: Ray Norman 7250 <raynorman7250@bigpond.com>
Date: Sun, 14 May 2017 21:21:02 +1000
To: Albert van Zetten <mayor@launceston.tas.gov.au>, Council <records@launceston.tas.gov.au>
Cc: Premier <will.hodgman@parliament.tas.gov.au>, "Peter Gutwein {Treasurer & Minister Local Govt.}" <peter.gutwein@parliament.tas.gov.au>
Conversation: Launceston's Cultural Strategy - Discussion Paper
Subject: Launceston's Cultural Strategy - Discussion Paper

Dear Albert and Aldermen,

As you may already be aware I have made a request to receive a copy of the recent Cultural Strategy Discussion Paper along with a copy of the brief it responds to – See response from Richard Mulvaney below. Given Richard’s response and the imminent departure of the General Manager, am I to take this response as an indication to a return to Launceston Council’s disinclination to share strategic and otherwise innocuous information with its constituents?

As you might expect, I see considerable shortfalls and failures in what appears to be the ‘strategy’ in play in regard to this report. That any of this might be imagined in any way as ‘confidential’ or ‘commercial-in-confidence’ approaches the outrageous! It is ridiculous to say the very least.  Imagining that the ‘expertise’ (the cultural expertise) exists somewhere other than within the communities that gives it expression is arrogant to a point almost beyond belief even if an outside point of view might well be useful and insightful.

Nonetheless, the report’s proponents it seems are exiting the scene in a pall of smoke with mirrors flashing and in this case leaving a vacuum their wake. Moreover, as ‘QVMAG trustees’ it seems that neither yourself nor your fellow Alderpeople find yourselves able to trust your constituency at any level with anything resembling their own assessment of Launceston’s cultural realities, their histories, their narratives.

Unsurprisingly, the issue of accountability springs to mind and immediately given that the QVMAG is an aspect of, and is integral to, Launceston’s cultural life and realties. Despite everything, as QVMAG trustees you are not separate to the city’s cultural life. Likewise, you as Aldermen/Trustees are not in control of the city’s cultural expression(s) in any way – or with any authority. Rather it falls to you to facilitate the kind of cultural expression in the city that gives it its ‘placedness’.

Compounding the problematics here is the fact that the consultant's brief seems also to be a secret document with reporting etc. apparently taking place in camera. This just compounds the perversity of the process’s opacity. What is there to hide? Why hide it? Indeed, are you and the Aldermen/Trustee in fact fully aware of the report’s purpose, objectives and the strategies employed to fulfill its purpose and objectives? Have you played any meaningful part in briefing the consultant? If so how and when?

Compounding the apparent opacity even more is the ‘report’ that you – as Mayor! – intend to “get rid of” the Museums Governance Advisory Board (MGAB) ASAP thus eliminating, it would appear, whatever formal or informal independent ‘advice’ that Council/Trustees might have available to it relevant to  QVMAG policy making. Given that YPIPA (York Park Inveresk Precinct Authority) has been eliminated recently the report of your MGAB aspiration appears to have significant credibility taken together with YPIPA’s elimination.

On top of all this there is the extraordinary length of time this whole business has been dragged out over – not to mention all the obfuscation. Given that Council determined in August 2015 that the QVMAG would have a stand alone ‘governing body’ and that this has not yet happened, nor has any progress been made towards that being achieved, this alone raises several issues relative to accountability.  Apparently this comes about under the conditions of, and aegis of, SECTION 62 of the Local Govt. Act. Sadly, Council’s disconnect with the city’s ‘cultural communities’, and its apparent disinclination to be accountable at any level, is all too evident.

The outcome of Launceston Council’s serial disinclination to be truly accountable to its constituency has delivered to ratepayers the most expensive rates in Tasmania with rates being in the order of 20% higher than those of adjoining jurisdictions. Put another another way, Launceston's rates are typically around $500 more expensive than adjoining jurisdictions. This could only happen as an outcome, the trickle-down-outcome, of ratepayers and constituents essentially being held in disregard (contempt even?!) and over a long period.

I am imagining that the QVMAG’s Community of Ownership & Interest (COI) should be somehow involved in determining the basis for ‘a cultural strategy and a reimagined QVMAG’ given that apparently the institution’s ‘future governance’ is apparently contingent upon the report and/or its advice. Taking into account that about 30 thousand ratepayers – a fraction of the QVMAG’s total COI – are conscripted funders of (investors in!) the QVMAG as an institution via their rates, “good governance” would suggest that they should be proactively involved in this strategic process. If they feel they are being held in contempt that’d be entirely understandable – reasonable even ... and some do. Unfortunately the narratives to be found in all this reflects very poorly upon Launceston as a place, the city’s commitment to inclusiveness and the flow-on impacts upon the quality of its cultural life in the region. It need not be so!

I ask that you and all aldermen to seriously consider reviewing the current approach to this matter towards there being meaningful inclusion of the the constituency – the city’s and the QVMAG’s COI –  in the development  of the ’Cultural Strategy’ to ensure that it be inclusive and transparent – there might well be overflow to other strategic decision making for the city.

I look forward to receiving your response and any advice that you might be able to offer in regard to this matter in the near future.

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


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

On 10/05/2017 12:29 pm, "Richard Mulvaney" <Richard.Mulvaney@launceston.tas.gov.au> wrote:

> Dear Ray
>
> Thank you for your enquiry about the Cultural Strategy.
>
> I have spoken with the General Manager. The recent presentation by Robyn
> Archer to the City of Launceston was a discussion paper. It was a preliminary
> report not the final document. We now need to do a feasibility assessment and
> financial scoping to determine the viability of the recommendations and the
> Council's position on them following the assessing, which will then flow into
> a final document. It will then be presented to Council and then the broader
> cultural community.
>
> Much work to do but very encouraging signs.
>
> Regards, Richard
>
>
> Richard Mulvaney I Director I Queen Victoria Museum & Art Gallery and Princess
> Theatre
> T 03 6323 3700 I F 03 6323 3776 I M 0409 744 392 I www.qvmag.tas.gov.au
>
>
>
>
> [http://api.launceston.tas.gov.au/eCard/disclaimer/qvmag125.png]
>
> [http://api.launceston.tas.gov.au/eCard/disclaimer/twitter.png]<https://twitte
> r.com/LtonCityCouncil>
> [http://api.launceston.tas.gov.au/eCard/disclaimer/youtube.png]
> <http://www.youtube.com/user/LauncestonCtyCouncil>  
> [http://api.launceston.tas.gov.au/eCard/disclaimer/www.png]
> <http://www.launceston.tas.gov.au>  
> [http://api.launceston.tas.gov.au/eCard/disclaimer/LCC_YVYL.png]
> <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