CONTEXT

Corporate reporting processes are typically designed to demonstrate accountability – reportedly. The QVMAG's 'Annual Reporting Process' attempts this task yet on closer examination it demonstrates a variety of things. One observable thing being the bureaucratic discretionary nature of 'accountability'. This is arguably an outcome of the institution's lack of proactive governance and the blurring of the functions of governance and management.

This report for 2016-17 is a demonstration of a series of disconnects that taken in isolation may seem relatively insignificant yet collectively, and over time, they become much more significant. 

To some extent it seems as to be the case that, if 'management' is comfortable with the 'smoothing over' of the rough spots is understandable – and occasionally it might even be acceptable. After all management is only 'accountable' to the 'policymakers and strategist' – the elected representatives – and if they're 'looking the other way' (strategically?), or unconcerned, then a constituency's quarrel is with its 'representatives' lack of accountability – not any of management's short falls.

In regard to the QVMAG as an operation, and given the metrics [LINK], governance looking the other way is non-trivial. Moreover, when there has arguably been an evolution of a 'culture of disconnection' that has evolved over time the disconnect is nonetheless unacceptable and untenable. It is even more so when there is a demonstrable abdication of the elected representatives' governance function for which a consideration is being received.

Perusing the report, questions upon question are there to be asked and it seems that the report has been made upon some vision of the status quo where 'set and forget" and 'operational convenience' has been the order of the day and has become the 'modus operandi'. Likewise, when an operation is envisaged as a 'cost centre' it is perpetually at risk. When its costs continue to rise and allocated income remains relatively static, 'success equals survival'!

However, what is at risk here? 

• Firstly, it is ultimately to do with the security of the QVMAG's collections given that:

• The institution is envisaged as having "over collected", and deaccessions are spoken of and considered, accountability with transparent policies need to be in place; and

• Ownership of the collections rests with the City of Launceston and thus under SECTION  62 of the Local Govt. Act [LINK] the General Manager has – and has asserted it – the capacity to dispose of components of the collections on advice she/he deems to be expert advice; and

• The collections are of such importance that they should be seen as being a 'part of the national estate';

they require more substantial protection than they currently enjoy.

• Secondly, the 'social licence' under which the Tasmanian Government in 1950 [LINK] endowed the city of Launceston with the ownership in 'law' has arguably expired given that the collections now represent the 'cultural property' of a diverse Community of Ownership m& Interest [LINK].

Together these things represent a significant risk that needs to be mitigated.

LoC MIN

QVMAG ANNUAL REPORT 2016-17 QUESTIONS ARISING

1. What new QVMAG policy initiatives were initiated, approved and implemented by Council (QVMAG Governance) in 2016-17? 

2. Given that QVMAG's expected outcomes and performance measures are not referenced in the report: 

•  Where can the QVMAG’s ‘performance indicators’ be found? 

•  How were they determined and assessed? 

• Where are they reported and when? 

3. How many ‘authorised’ formal and funded research projects were undertaken by the QVMAG in the reporting period and 
• How and when were they authorised and funded? 
• What is/was their intended duration? 
• When and where are they reported on? 
• What percentage of the recurrent budget does their funding represent?
• What, if any, project or complementary funding/sponsorships did they or are they likely to attract?



4. How many research projects were QVMAG staff and associates involved in or engaged with in the reporting period within and outside the institution and: 
• How and when were they authorised? 
• What is their intended duration? 
• When and where are the reported on? 
• How were they funded? 
• Which if any were collaborative or cooperative projects? 
• What is their impact upon the recurrent budget?

5. How many collection acquisitions were made, formally accessioned and documented relative to collection policy imperatives? 
• Where can the QVMAG acquisition policy be found if not on the QVMAG website ? 
• Who approved of the acquisition and when? 
• How and when was their accessioning approved and documented? 




6. How many objects were added to the QVMAG collections on loan 2016-17, for what period and under what conditions? 
• Where can the QVMAG loan's policy be found ? 
• Who approved of any object loans to whom and when? 
• How and when is a loan approved and documented? 




7. How many accessioned objects in the QVMAG’s collections were deaccessioned in the reporting period? 
• Where is the QVMAG’s deaccession policy published and when was it instigated and last reviewed? 
• What income was generated via deaccession of objects from QVMAG collections? 
• What purpose/s were served via the deaccessions? 
• Where and when are deaccessions documented? 



8. What QVMAG 'non collection' assets were disposed of in the reporting period and under what circumstances and where is this information documented? 

9. Relative to reported overall attendances what was the QVMAG’s busiest day in the reporting period and how many attendances does it represent? 

10. Relative to reported overall attendances, what were the six (6) busiest days in the reporting period and what explanations can be given for these days? 



11. What measures are used to assess the effectiveness and productivity of a program or project, who assess effectiveness and where is it reported? 

12. Given that the report does not provide this level of detail, where can funding agencies, constituents, donors and sponsors, et al find appropriate reporting of projects including costs, project outcomes and income generated relative to their contributions and: 
• How is it provided and to whom? 
• When is it provided/reported? 
• Where is it documented and accessible to the public? 

13. Given the QVMAG’s stated purpose, in the reporting period, what policy and strategic initiatives and reviews were undertaken and/or implemented in that period by the Aldermen/Trustees and in what time frame and upon what expert advice as required by SECTION 65 of the Local Govt. Act 1993? 







14. The 'corporate structure' of the QVMAG is arguably misdescribed as “Corporate Governance“ in the report, and given that: 
• The Museum Governance Advisory Board (MGAB) is an advisory body with no authority to determine ‘strategic policy’ for the QVMAG, rather it advises the Aldermen/Trustees on such matters; 
• The Aboriginal Reference Group (ARG) is an advisory body in regard to QVMAG operational management relevant Tasmanian Aboriginal representation and presentation ‘without a strategic policy function'; 
• QVMAG Friends is an ‘auxiliary support group’ that has no ‘strategic policy’ function; 
 • The Herbert Scott Society is also an ‘auxiliary support group’ without a ‘strategic policy’ function; 
• Why is this disparate grouping of entities characterised as having a governance cum ‘strategic policy’ function when clearly they do not, albeit variously important to the institution’s operation in distinct ways? 
• Also, given that the ‘units’ are operationally separate and distinct with no direct governance or management functions arguably they should be reporting separately and by their primary representative so as not to blur their operational relevance/purpose/importance. Why aren't they?



15. To function optimally the QVMAG operation needs access to a broad range of expertise in disparate fields of specialisation. 

Consequently, what appears to be missing in the report, and on the institution’s website, is any substantial documentation of individual’s – staff, associates and volunteers – academic credentials and professional skill sets relative to the positions they hold. 

Likewise, the reporting of the supplementary skills/credentials for marketing and/or community engagement purposes would seem to be useful. 

• Given suitable privacy protections, what might be the inhibitor here? 



16. Given that the QVMAG’s community and cultural relevance is almost entirely dependent upon it producing a broad spectrum of publications and published outputs – exhibits & exhibitions, peer reviewed research articles/publications/papers, discussion papers, press presentations, social media presentations etc. 

The institution appears to be importing ‘publications’ in preference to generating publications and exhibitions in-house. 

In terms of the institution being a regional cultural institution and a “community cultural enterprise” (P7 QVMAG Charter): 
• How does this outcome relate to, or is it relevant to, articulating a sense of ‘Launceston placedness’? 
• How does this outcome provide ‘leadership’ relevant towards increasing understandings of Launceston’s/Tasmania’s natural and cultural heritage? 
• What does this indicate relative to performance measures relative to anticipated outcomes and opportunities available to enhance them? 
• How does this fit with the QVMAG’s stated purpose, "increasing community awareness of collection material" and the narratives related to it? 
• Moreover, does this fit with the institution’s capacity to generate income in accord with its entrepreneurial ‘purpose for being’? 


17. Sponsorships and donations – cash and in-kind – that add to the key recurrent funding received needs to be both acknowledged and rewarded. Government funding (local & other) is rewarded with services provided in accord with political imperatives albeit that the services respond to variable and uneven level of demand. 

Nonetheless, corporate, institutional and private sponsorships typically depend upon receiving a dividend – tangible and intangible – in return for their sponsorships. 

Given that corporate and private sponsorships represent a relatively small component of the QVMAG’s operating budget it raises questions to do with: 
• What level of programming is directed toward initiating and fostering collaborative and cooperative relationships and opportunities with the ‘private sector’?

18. Income derived from fees and charges increase by approx. 33% on the preceding year – to approx. $545K from  $365K – while the total earned represents less than 1% of the recurrent budget. Given that the QVMAG is seen as a 'COST CENTRE' and that its recurrent budgets have remained essentially stable – at approx. $4Million from ratepayer funds – in recent years:
• What strategic initiatives and priorities are under consideration to enable the QVMAG to structure its operation to meet future demands?
• What strategic initiatives are under consideration to enable the QVMAG to develop programming and/or its research profile in context with local cum statewide imperatives – and specifically relevant to 'cultural tourism'?
• What strategic initiatives are under consideration to enable the QVMAG to proactively increases its recurrent budget?