Dear Aldermen,
RE: The Proposed QVMAG Strategic Directions Committee
Reading the agenda for Council's next meeting, it seems that Ald. Hugh McKenzie has finally bitten the QVMAG bullet and has put a motion before Council for the formation of a QVMAG Strategic Directions Committee (QVMAG SDC).
"The City of Launceston's Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery" comes at a considerable cost to the city's ratepayers. Consequently, each and every Launcestonian ratepayer and resident has a vested interest in Ald. McKenzie's motion as long term investors and stakeholders in the QVMAG.
"The City of Launceston's Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery" comes at a considerable cost to the city's ratepayers. Consequently, each and every Launcestonian ratepayer and resident has a vested interest in Ald. McKenzie's motion as long term investors and stakeholders in the QVMAG.
It is important to understand that the QVMAG has grown like 'Topsy' for year upon year and arguably without constraint – 2000 to 2010 by something in the order of 300%. Launceston City Council has typically and "proudly" claimed the place as its very own. Nonetheless, successive Councils have been comfortable enough imposing the increasing costs upon Launceston's ratepayers as these costs have grown exponentially.
Despite this declared 'ownership' the the governance and management of the institution has become increasingly blurred and arguably to the institution's serious detriment. Likewise, the fiscal impost on ratepayers has become increasingly inequitable over time. Indeed, with the passing of time the inequity has become somewhat apocryphal.
For some ratepayers their notional QVMAG contribution, conscripted as it is, represents as much as 10% of their rate bill. For others it is more and for some it is less but it is always a significant a proportion. In any event, collectively, they are the QVMAG's most significant philanthropists. In the life of the previous Council, and this council thus far, ratepayers have contributed something in the order of $16 million to the QVMAG's recurrent budget. Launceston's ratepayers' contributions/investment over time is unmatched and that is possibly true if compared to any regional regional institution of its kind anywhere in Australia.
To keep things in perspective it must be said that the museum's and the art gallery's collections hold important objects, important cultural property, largely paid for by donors and sponsors and for the most part not by the council or the State Govt.
The QVMAG is without argument, potentially one of the region's most important tourism assets. Therefore, ratepayers' investment in the institution is nontrivial. The institution is also a significant Tasmanian cultural asset.
The QVMAG is without argument, potentially one of the region's most important tourism assets. Therefore, ratepayers' investment in the institution is nontrivial. The institution is also a significant Tasmanian cultural asset.
Interestingly, Ald McKenzie, when he was running for Mayor at the last election he said ... "I have been studying and discussing the QVMAG for the past three years. I am of the view that the assets of the QVMAG do not belong to the City of Launceston, at best we hold them as custodian for the State of Tasmania. As such the annual $4m+ cost to the Launceston ratepayers is totally unjust. Having said that I can understand why other Councils do not want to contribute to something that is “proudly owned by Launceston”. The answer to me is clearly that it should be owned and operated (and funded) by the State (provided we protect the collection from being pilfered and downgraded) as a Northern or Regional Museum. There is a need for an overhaul of the operating structure which may see an independent board of governance appointed to oversee the operations. Currently it is treated as an expensive cost centre with an inordinate focus on financial performance without a proper focus on what it could be. " CLICK HER FOR THE FULL TEXT ISSUE 3.
Also interestingly, there is the implication in Ald McKenzie's motion that there have been "broad public consultation as this has been done previously". If Ald. McKenzie can describe those "public consultations" it'd be interesting to see what might pass for a public consultation. For example, the LCC commissioned MMC-Link QVMAG Future Directions Plan does not claim for itself a public consultation process as a part of its methodology but a survey of opinion was undertaken.
The General Manager has been reported as saying, perhaps paraphrased, that 'a council meeting is a public consultation', then perhaps, by this definition, there has been some public consultation. Personally, I've been researching QVMAG issues since the late 1990s and the only truly public consultation that I recall took place in 2002 – QVMAG Future Search Conference. Following that there was the Chamberlain Report of 2006 that had a component of public consultation informing it but Council did not implement the report's governance recommendations.
In fact, in my experience, suggestions of meaningful public consultation processes over recent years have been talked down, and more to the point, such processes have been assiduously avoided. The rationales have been very successful albeit opaque.
However, if there had been any public consultations there would/should be documentation of them. The first place to look would be in past LCC minutes.
As always, the devil, or if you like God, is in the detail, a rather old idea expressing the idea that whatever one does should be done thoroughly – like the details are important. Ald. McKenzie's motion has much going for it and arguably comes not before its time. Launceston's ratepayers, and arguably Tasmania's taxpayers generally, have been treated like the proverbial mushrooms for year upon year under some kind of North South political license.
If you are a cynic, looking at the motion, there is every prospect that this initiative could ultimately turn out to be yet another smoke screen to thwart real change and thus destined to maintain the status quo.
Notwithstanding this, if the opportunity Ald McKenzie's motion presents is taken up with the enthusiasm it deserves, then Northern Tasmania might well be on its way to realising the full potential of one of its most important cultural assets.
The scope of Ald. McKenzie's proposed investigation is timely and importantly its objectives are laudable in that it is essentially a research process. However, as presented, the proposed committee appears to be a 'hunting and gathering exercise' more than a purposeful interrogation of the available facts. This can be avoided but there are some methodology and accountability concerns:
1. The proposed QVMAG Strategic Directions Committee (QVMAG SDC) purpose is ill defined and ambiguous. Is its purpose:
The General Manager has been reported as saying, perhaps paraphrased, that 'a council meeting is a public consultation', then perhaps, by this definition, there has been some public consultation. Personally, I've been researching QVMAG issues since the late 1990s and the only truly public consultation that I recall took place in 2002 – QVMAG Future Search Conference. Following that there was the Chamberlain Report of 2006 that had a component of public consultation informing it but Council did not implement the report's governance recommendations.
In fact, in my experience, suggestions of meaningful public consultation processes over recent years have been talked down, and more to the point, such processes have been assiduously avoided. The rationales have been very successful albeit opaque.
However, if there had been any public consultations there would/should be documentation of them. The first place to look would be in past LCC minutes.
As always, the devil, or if you like God, is in the detail, a rather old idea expressing the idea that whatever one does should be done thoroughly – like the details are important. Ald. McKenzie's motion has much going for it and arguably comes not before its time. Launceston's ratepayers, and arguably Tasmania's taxpayers generally, have been treated like the proverbial mushrooms for year upon year under some kind of North South political license.
If you are a cynic, looking at the motion, there is every prospect that this initiative could ultimately turn out to be yet another smoke screen to thwart real change and thus destined to maintain the status quo.
Notwithstanding this, if the opportunity Ald McKenzie's motion presents is taken up with the enthusiasm it deserves, then Northern Tasmania might well be on its way to realising the full potential of one of its most important cultural assets.
The scope of Ald. McKenzie's proposed investigation is timely and importantly its objectives are laudable in that it is essentially a research process. However, as presented, the proposed committee appears to be a 'hunting and gathering exercise' more than a purposeful interrogation of the available facts. This can be avoided but there are some methodology and accountability concerns:
- To determine how the status quo can be maintained and sustained?
- Or is it to determine how the institution might be reimagined as a 21st C cultural institution?
- Or is it to determine how the institution might become a truly regional institution?
- Or is it to determine the feasibility of some other concept?
Without a clearly articulated purpose it will not be possible to measure the QVMAG SDC's outcomes against inputs nor access the relevance of outcomes against its declared purpose.
2. In the absence of any recent public consultation process to reference, there is a case for the QVMAG SDC to call for submissions and make them available to the public throughout the process in order to be appropriately informed of issues that concern the community – ratepayers et al.
2. In the absence of any recent public consultation process to reference, there is a case for the QVMAG SDC to call for submissions and make them available to the public throughout the process in order to be appropriately informed of issues that concern the community – ratepayers et al.
3. Given the passage of time, plus the need for transparency, and the various reports presented to Council over time, there is a need to publish online all those reports the QVMAG SDC is considering and referencing in order to contextualise its deliberations.
4. Given the inbuilt ambiguity of the term "stakeholder", there is a need to make public the list of stakeholders the QVMAG SDC intends to consult, and has consulted, and the context of their deemed stakeholdership.
5. Given the assertion that the QVMAG SDC's work is "time bound and strategic" there needs to be a firm sunset date articulated for the anticipated reporting date.
Despite the critique offered here I endorse the spirit of Ald. McKenzie's motion and particularly so in that it seems to offer a break in the inertia that has mitigated against meaningful change and the embrace of 21st Century imperatives at the QVMAG.
Yours sincerely,
Ray Norman
Independent Researcher & Cultural Geographer
Likewise, the QVMAG SDC's membership needs to made public and determined by the Aldermen – the QVMAG's current Trustees. Furthermore, once appointments are made they need to made public as soon as practical.
The motion does not identify under what section of the Local Govt. Act it will be constituted under. It seems that it may be SECTION 24 and if so it will be a 'Special Committee of Council'. By extension, it is Council that:
- Establishes its terms and purpose;.
- Appoints the committee's membership.
- Determines the procedures and reporting procedures to be adhered to.
Despite the critique offered here I endorse the spirit of Ald. McKenzie's motion and particularly so in that it seems to offer a break in the inertia that has mitigated against meaningful change and the embrace of 21st Century imperatives at the QVMAG.
Yours sincerely,
Ray Norman
Independent Researcher & Cultural Geographer
No comments:
Post a Comment