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.