It needs to be kept in mind that the QVMAG is a ‘public institution’ dependent almost entirely on the public purse for its infrastructure and recurrent operational costs that allows it to exist.
The Metrics: The QVMAG’s recurrent budget is almost entirely provided by the public purse. The metrics pertaining to the operation are of some interest. With something in the order of 133,000visitations documented in the QVMAG’s Annual Report 2015-16, the cost per visit, as stated earlier, is in the order of $45 and somewhere around $30 of that attributable to ratepayer contributions via their rates. Averaged out, every ratepayer makes an annual contribution via their rates of something around $130plus. In my own case, the QVMAG component of my rates is around about 10%. All this taken together is non-trivial.
Community Investment in QVMAG: The QVMAG holds in its collections something in the order of $240Million in value that might be regarded as a significant component of the ‘national estate.’ However, the dollar value fare exceeds by the scientific, social and cultural values. Then there is the issue of the capital investment in building and infrastructure. It is open to serious speculation that the ‘collection policies, accession practices and deaccession policies/practices’, not to mention the deployment of capital assets’ fall short of what might be regarded as ‘best practice’ in the field and/or real-world ‘museum management’ practices.
The Operational Model: The QVMAG operates as a ‘cost centre’ and consequently is an adherent to the famous Micawber, and oft-quoted, recipe for happiness that goes "annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen [pounds] nineteen [shillings] and six [pence], result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery." Charles Dickens, David Copperfield, quite apart from ‘Dickensian happiness’ it is also a recipe for ‘survival’ over, or at the expense of, ‘success’. OR put another way, dedicated to being ‘risk adverse’ over being ‘risk alert’ thus dedicated to maintaining the status quo.
Operating in this paradigm it would seem that the General Manager, Robert Dobrynski, (now resigned) and QVMAG’s management was/is resistant to change for whatever reason. That is, change that takes policy and strategic determination away from confidential in-house, self-serving, decision making and into the hands of a stand-alone ‘governing body’ that would determine policy and handle strategic decision making – and that focuses upon the interests of the institution’s Community of Ownership & Interest (COI) … stakeholders, researchers, educators. ratepayers, donors, sponsors, et al.
So, what might there be at risk? Launcestonians and Tasmanians have a great deal invested in the QVMAG. as and its collections. Also, it has been so as an ongoing investment and something that has been going on over a long-time frame. In many senses, what’s invested is incalculable.
The Blurring of Governance & Management Functions: Any critical examination of the appropriate records at Council and the QVMAG will surely demonstrate that there is, and has been, a quite deliberate blurring of the governance and management functions and roles relevant to best practice in the field. Over time, and in particular recently, this has had less than desirable impacts upon the QVMAG’s performance and its ability to deliver the fiscal, social and cultural dividends it promises to deliver and has the potential to do in a 21st C context.
Areas of investigation worthy of attention are:
- Collection policy: Arguably the collection policy that’s currently in operation belongs to another time and arguably does not offer much in the way of collection security in a 21st C context. An examination of the differences between understood ‘best practice’ in the field –say including the Tasmanian Museum & Art gallery (TMAG) – and that which is in operation at QVMAG would reveal significant differences – this is a governance issue and not in the realm of management.
- Deaccession: Arguably deaccession policies are among the most contentious in museums and art galleries. The policy that’s currently in operation at QVMAG does not offer much in the way of security in a 21st C context. An examination of the differences between understood ‘best practice’ in the field and that which is in operation at QVMAG would reveal significant differences – this is a governance issue and not in the realm of management.
- Strategic Planning: In its Charter, the QVMAG describes itself as a “Community Cultural Enterprise”. Albeit that the reporting relevant to what’s headed “Strategic Directions, Outcomes and Performance” might pass for a Strategic Plan it is essentially a document prepared by management – albeit aided by the governance advisory board. Its adoption by Council in many ways is an example of the blurring and blending (blanding down?) of the functions of governance and management. Indeed, the absence of measurable/objectives performance indicators is a clear indication of ‘softness’ of the evaluation that is for the most part done in-house with limited opportunities for the QVMAG’s COI and/or ratepayers to interrogate the outcomes of an operation they have a substantial investment in.
- Business cum Enterprise Planning: Again, in its Charter, the QVMAG describes itself as a “Community Cultural Enterprise”. Nonetheless, anything resembling a business plan is absent from anything accessible to the QVMAG’s COI and/or ratepayers. This reinforces the notion that the institution is imagined as an operational ‘cost centre’ rather than anything resembling a “Community Cultural Enterprise” or indeed a ‘cultural institution’ and an entity that might be held accountable as such.
Risk Management: Once such things have been taken into account the areas of risks, and to whom it/they may impact upon, the risks become much clearer. In fact, if these things were indeed a concern as they should be it’d be reasonable to expect that indications of these concerns might be found in the institution’s reporting, marketing and programing. Arguably, this is not so!
Aldermanic Acknowledgement of QVMAG Governance Role: In an attempt to get Launceston’s aldermen to acknowledge their QVMAG trusteeship cum governance role against considerable resistance I posed a series of question to them – see http://qvmaggovernance2017.blogspot.com.au/. Whilst the questions were directed to the aldermen the responses were provided by management. Indeed, at the open Council meeting not one alderman spoke to the questions nor did any make any attempt to contextualise the issues embedded in the questions. Arguably, this adds up to being evidence of the aldermen’s abdication of their QVMAG role and their devolving it to management in a discretionary way.
Given the size and importance of the QVMAG this poses a whole range of accountability issues not to mention what might be discovered in an operation audit of the QVMAG in regard to the integrity of the operation.
The Status Quo V’s Change: In August 2015 a LCC committee presented Council with a report – Attachment 1 - QVMAG Review (16 pages) - City of Launcestonhttps://www.launceston.tas.gov.au/.../2015/...aug-2015/city-of-launceston-council-agend...
Aug 24, 2015 - QVMAG Review - 22.07.2015. INTRODUCTION. This report was prepared by the Committee appointed by the City of Launceston Council (CoL). In essence, the report canvased and recommended change in regard to the QVMAG operation and it was embraced and endorsed by Council. The records are there for all to access.
Consultation Paradigm: Interestingly, two years on it is apparent that the GM, Robert Dobrynski, has worked to circumvent Council’s strategic and policy making aspirations embedded in the work of the committee that presented to Council. Moreover, he embarked upon an adventure of his own and has apparently engaged a consultant, Robin Archer, who has been briefed under the provisions of SECTION 62 of the Local Govt Act with the brief apparently, and somewhat inexplicably, being confidential.
Local Govt. Act 1993 & SECTIONS 65 & 62: Also, interestingly and concerningly, while he was still General Manager, Robert Dobrynski, emailed me saying “The matter of appointment of 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…. Any motions of Council that contradict this position are unenforceable…. These matters have been confirmed by senior legal advice some time ago.”
While this might be advice, senior advice even, it is just that, advice and the scope of the 2015 QVMAG Review was wider than indicated in this response. Importantly, trustees would ‘govern’the institution not “manage” it.
Accountability: In the face of obfuscation and bureaucratic circumvention the QVMAG’s COI – ratepayers, stakeholders, et al – appear to have no hope of winning anything resembling open and transparent governance for the institution – and thus meaningful accountability and consultation processes. Under the current circumstances, at Launceston City Council, and the QVMAG, it appears as if accountability is something that can be dealt with in a discretionary way. This appears to be the case, and especially so in regard to the QVMAG, albeit that the Treasurer & Minister for Local Govt. tells us the main characteristics of good governance is accountable, transparent, law-abiding, responsive, equitable, participatory and inclusive, effective and efficient and not least of all, consensus oriented – http://www.dpac.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/271170/Good_Governance_Guide_May_2016.pdf.
I submit that what is set out here is a very serious situation that impacts upon the city’s ratepayers and the QVMAG’s Community of Ownership & Interest and in multiple ways. I therefore request that within the aegis of your office you consider the issues I’ve put forward.
Yours sincerely,
Ray Norman
Ray Norman
<zingHOUSEunlimited>
The lifestyle design enterprise and research network
“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
No comments:
Post a Comment