The strategy being flagged here for the future funding of the QVMAG is speculative and aspirational without even a hint of a set of objectives let alone rationales for them. Presumably the methodology being proposed is purely political and ‘game play’ between Local Govt. and State Govt based upon an assumed, albeit untested, assertion that there is a social licence to pursue this course of action.
In essence, what is being presented here is a ‘cargo cultish’ strategy that is careless of, indeed oblivious to, the consequences of success. Inevitably, unless the budget can be constrained to its current level, there will be flow on costs – increased staffing, enhanced infrastructure, etc. This does not appear that have been anticipated or mitigated against even though there has been a history of all this a the QVMAG.
While operationally the city would without doubt benefit from an additional $3Million towards the institution’s recurrent budget coming from the State Govt. the institution’s recurrent budget would not, should not, alter substantially. In that case, ratepayers would be relieved of $3Million of their current contribution via an undisclosed QVMAG levy towards the institution being a ‘City of Launceston Cost Centre’.
All this is true unless ‘strategically’ the city intends to invest more into the QVMAG operationally and towards delivering enhanced outcomes. In which case that would be an entirely ‘new strategy’ founded upon a set of objectives and supported by a set of rationales that in turn was based upon a ‘social licence’ – this is not evident in the strategy however. The risk here is ‘bureaucratic creep’ and expansion by stealth.
It’s a ‘risk’ if governance allows management to expand an operation, or cost centre, exponentially rigorous without ‘functional’ accountability. This is a risk that the QVMAG has delivered upon over two decades plus – and it’s the history from which the institution’s current fiscal problems is founded.
The thing that is most at risk in an operation such as the QVMAG is ‘the collections’ which after all is what is at the foundation upon which such institutions are founded and is indeed largely their ‘purpose for being’. Any additional State Govt. funding is ever likely to be contingent upon there being functionally accountable governance in place – ideally standalone governance.
The strategy being flagged here for the future funding of the QVMAG is speculative and aspirational without even a hint of a set of objectives let alone rationales for them. Presumably the methodology being proposed is purely political and ‘game play’ between Local Govt. and State Govt based upon an assumed, albeit untested, assertion that there is a social licence to pursue this course of action.
ReplyDeleteIn essence, what is being presented here is a ‘cargo cultish’ strategy that is careless of, indeed oblivious to, the consequences of success. Inevitably, unless the budget can be constrained to its current level, there will be flow on costs – increased staffing, enhanced infrastructure, etc. This does not appear that have been anticipated or mitigated against even though there has been a history of all this a the QVMAG.
While operationally the city would without doubt benefit from an additional $3Million towards the institution’s recurrent budget coming from the State Govt. the institution’s recurrent budget would not, should not, alter substantially. In that case, ratepayers would be relieved of $3Million of their current contribution via an undisclosed QVMAG levy towards the institution being a ‘City of Launceston Cost Centre’.
All this is true unless ‘strategically’ the city intends to invest more into the QVMAG operationally and towards delivering enhanced outcomes. In which case that would be an entirely ‘new strategy’ founded upon a set of objectives and supported by a set of rationales that in turn was based upon a ‘social licence’ – this is not evident in the strategy however. The risk here is ‘bureaucratic creep’ and expansion by stealth.
It’s a ‘risk’ if governance allows management to expand an operation, or cost centre, exponentially rigorous without ‘functional’ accountability. This is a risk that the QVMAG has delivered upon over two decades plus – and it’s the history from which the institution’s current fiscal problems is founded.
The thing that is most at risk in an operation such as the QVMAG is ‘the collections’ which after all is what is at the foundation upon which such institutions are founded and is indeed largely their ‘purpose for being’. Any additional State Govt. funding is ever likely to be contingent upon there being functionally accountable governance in place – ideally standalone governance.