QUESTION 1: Aldermens Trustee/Governance Role

Question 1: Have you as aldermen in your roles as community representatives and the 'default trustees' tested the advice that has apparently been provided to you by the General Manager under the provisions of Section 65 of the Local Govt Act? 

Response: A trust is a particular type of legal entity. Section 19(1) of the Local Government Act 1993 (the Act) states: "A council is a body corporate …" The advice by the former General Manager is due to this significant legal distinction. Mr Norman appears to not appreciate this by inferring the role of a trustee is the same as an 'elected person' under the Act. Aldermen receive advice and attend training commencing with the induction process following their election on their role and provisions of the Act. . 

MY RESPONSE: The advice being offered here is not framed within the spirit of the question and moreover the response is condescending and more to the point it seems to circumvent the issues relevant to the questions being asked.

• Firstly, I do appreciate the distinction between aldermen’s role and function as 'elected representatives' and the role and function of a ‘trustee’. It is just the case that the two roles come together in Launceston as the aldermen are the QVMAG’s governing body responsible for the determination of policy and strategies – thus the QVMAG’s ‘default trustees’. Clearly this role falls to them as a consequence of their being elected as aldermen. It is just the case that the QVMAG stewardship cum trusteeship role falls to aldermen by default even if it may appear anomalous and/or somewhat ambiguous. The answer provided here sets out to exploit the ambiguity and the anomoly. 

•  Secondly, n the evidence, the ambiguity has been compounded by the past General Manager’s interpretation of an aldermen’s role and the GM's role as being indistinct. Given that there is no ambiguity nor argument that aldermen have the ultimate policy determination and strategy authority aldermen function as the QVMAG's 'trustees'. 

• Thirdly, arguably the QVMAG’s collections are held in ‘trust’ on behalf of ratepayers, taxpayers, sponsors and donors. Thus their role is arguably one of both ‘trusteeship and governance’.

• Fourthly, the answer provided here, arguably, misconstrues the notion of ‘trust and trusteeship’ and the obligations to the collections constituencies in Launceston, Tasmania and elsewhere. Moreover, it downplays all that has been and is being invested in the collections and the in the institution over time. Currently, ratepayers are collectively, and  compulsorily, investing something in the order of $4million annually. This is non-trivial.

Question 2: Aldermen's 'trusteeship' role

Question 2: Have you as aldermen in your 'trusteeship' roles sought independent advice in regard to these roles given all that is at risk and at stake? 

         

Response: Aldermen have a role as an elected person, independent advice has been made available during the training and induction processes. Further advice is provided consistent with requirements of section 65 of the Act when specific matters are being considered.

MY RESPONSE: 

• Firstly, this question was addressed to the aldermen and it has been responded to by management. Moreover, it assumes that training and induction processes are, and have been, sufficient, and by implication provided by management. Nonetheless, it is clear that management do not appear to have ensured that aldermen have been apprised of their QVMAG governance/trusteeship role and if it has been the response here does not say so. Moreover, there appears to be an imbedded implication that management does not acknowledge aldermen’s QVMAG governance/trustee function – possibly in relation to SECION 65 of the LG Act which seems to presume elected representatives lack expertise. 

• Seconly, this answer implies that the only ‘expert advice’ aldermen might have available to them is the advice that the General Manager deems to be expert advice. The flow on seems to be that this advice is always adequate/appropriate albeit that in regard in-house advice may not be relevant, free and fearless advice. 

Question 3: Trusteeship & SECTIONS 62 & 65 Local Govt. Act 1993

Question 3: Have you as Aldermen in your 'trusteeship' roles been given direct access to the advice the General Manager apparently relies upon under SECTIONS 65 & 62 of the Local Govt. Act?

Response: A response is provided under Questions 1 and 2 .

MY RESPONSE: ACUALLY, the question was about “independent advice” and by extension about advice other than the General Managers. It’s also about “direct access” to the source of the General Manager’s advice given that she/he will demonstrably lacks expertise relative to various knowledge bases and skill sets – here museology, social and cultural histories, the various sciences, current art theory etc. etc.

Question 4: The Importance of Cultural Tourism

Question 4: Have you as aldermen considered cultural tourism's impact upon and the importance to the Tamar region, and Launceston specifically, and in an ongoing way, to the economic, social and cultural wellbeing of your constituencies?

Response: Yes. The General Manager presented a landmark report to Open Council on 24 April 2017 entitled Towards a Cultural Strategy for Launceston that contained numerous recommendations and set out the framework for the work that is currently being undertaken. 

MY RESPONSE: This question was addressed to the Aldermen individually and collectively and not management. As it turns out this response fails the credibility test in so much as the report referred to is now described as “an interim report” and deemed to be confidential apparently under the provisions being implied in SECTION 62 of the LG Act 1993.

Moreover, it is to be presented to Council when completed.  Given that: 

• It was April 24 that aldermen considered the interim report; and 
• The report is not yet complete; and 
• The General Manager, Robert Dobrzynski, who commissioned the report has left his position; and 
• The report remains confidential albeit apparently commissioned at a significant cost to ratepayers; 

it is clear that aldermen, given this response, are not actively engaged in developing cultural tourism strategies and policies in an ongoing way.

Question 5: QVMAG Policy Settings for Cultural Tourism

Question 5: If you have either individually or collectively done so, what form has it taken and how has it manifested itself in the 'policy settings' you as aldermen have put in place and/or championed? 

Response: A nationally recognised expert was engaged and presented a report to Aldermen. A dedicated unit has been set up (as a result of the Council report of 24 April 2017) within the organisation to work with this expert to develop the policies and strategies. Regular reports to Aldermen will occur through this process. At the same time the Council has engaged with other organisations, such as MONA, to deliver tangible outcomes. 

MY RESPONSE: Again, the question was addressed to the Aldermen individually and collectively and not management. Nonetheless, it is now clear that despite the significant fiscal investment attached to this report: 

• It is has not as yet delivered an outcome; nor 
• Have there been regular reports as indicated; nor 
• Despite apparently ad hoc management strategy, Council/Trustee strategies are not even close to being implemented; and
• it appears as if Council has not made any progress in regard to putting a policy setting in place that is relevant to cultural tourism. 

By extension it is apparent that aldermen are not cognoscente of the opportunities – cultural and fiscal – being missed at the expense of the QVMAG’s Community of Ownership & Interest (COI _ stakeholders plus) and especially rate and tax payers.

Question 6: Governance Purpose

Question 6: Indeed, how often, when and in what context have you as aldermen and default trustees made determinations that have been acted upon, and are there to be acted upon, in accord with Council's purpose - namely, to provide for the health, safety and welfare of the community; to represent the interests of the community; to provide for the peace, order and good government of the municipal area? 

Response: The Aldermen made decisions as elected representatives at every Council meeting consistent with section 20 (referred to in the question) of the Act. 

MY RESPONSE:  Again, the question was addressed to the Aldermen individually and collectively in the QVMAG governance and trusteeship roles. My understanding is that aldermen have not discussed or considered this question relative to QVMAG Policies and strategies. 

This can be demonstrated by the fact that QVMAG matters are rarely placed on Council Agendas for discussion and/or resolution in Open Council. 

By implication this can be taken as a demonstration of Council’s deferring its governance function to management. Moreover, there are occasions when aldermen’s/trusteeship role/s relative to the QVMAG are in conflict – the assets exchange at Inveresk and its implications being an example.

Question 7: Consultant's Brief

Question 7: Have you as aldermen been involved in developing the brief for the consultant/s(?) and if so to what extent and at what point? 

Response: The Aldermen have been involved in setting the policy framework through ongoing discussions with the General Manager and the consideration of the Council report referred to previously. See response to Question 5. 

MY RESPONSE: Again, the question was addressed to the Aldermen individually and collectively and not management. That said I have been advised that Robyn Archer [1] is the consultant in question. By inference in previous statements here it would seem that she is being asked to provide ‘policy and strategic’ recommendations somewhat in isolation from the city’s ‘cultural realities’, 

The QVMAG’s Community of Ownership and Interest (COI) [1] • [2] where this set of policy recommendations might apply and the imperatives that define Launceston as a place seeking to attract cultural tourist etc. do not seem to have been engaged with.

Question 8: Cultural Unit

Question 8: Has there been a 'unit' of some kind established and if so what is its specific purpose and objectives and what personnel have been employed from within the budget? 

Response: A unit has been created (as a result of the Council report referred to previously) with a senior officer appointed to work with relevant expert advice and the Council to prepare a strategy and plan to deliver cultural and economic outcomes. 

MY RESPONSE:  Again, the question was addressed to the Aldermen individually and collectively and not management. However, if the unit is purposeful, and has been structured strategically, and is operating on “expert advice” it is more than puzzling that ratepayers, the funders of the unit, are unable to be provided with an articulation of these things. 

Indeed, it might well be the case that aldermen are not fully aware of these things neither might they have sought this specific advice in order that they might share it with their constituents – thus the apparent necessity to rely upon management to field questions directed to them.

Question 9: Cultural Unit's Personnel

Question 9: Moreover, what are the duty statements for personnel thus far engaged? 

Response: The objectives of the unit have been set out in the response to Question 8.

MY RESPONSE: Again, the question was addressed to the Aldermen individually and collectively and not management. Nonetheless, on the evidence, the operative’s duty statements cannot be shared with ratepayers et al and this would appear to be in an indication that the aldermen are disinclined to be accountable and/o are disengaged with the establishment of the unit and its purpose.

Question 10: Aldermanic/Trustee Engagement

Question 10: Have you as aldermen either provided or endorsed a project budget for this initiative? 

Response: The Aldermen have supported the formation of the unit and the objectives. Aldermen set the overall statutory estimates under section 82 of the Act. Aldermen have been advised that funding will be made available to support the delivery of the objectives. 

MY RESPONSE: Again, the question was addressed to the Aldermen individually and collectively and not management. Still, the specific budget allocation for this component of Council expenditure should be freely available to ratepayers in accord with Council’s Vision, Mission & Values – https://www.launceston.tas.gov.au/Council/Our-Vision-Mission-and-Values

Question 11: Community Consultation

Question 11: When and how is it intended that there will be community consultation given that it is Launceston's 'communities' cultures' that are the subject of any research involved and them who will be funding the process? 

Response: Extensive consultation occurred as part of the initial work. Engagement with relevant parties will continue as the work progresses. Funding will be managed through the Council's budgetary processes. 

MY RESPONSE:  Again, the question was addressed to the Aldermen individually and collectively and not management. Despite the assertion made here, personally I am unaware of any “extensive consultation” process and I’m unaware of anyone from the wider community who has participated in any such process. 

I submit that it would be reasonable to expect that a process described as “extensive” and designed to glean ‘local perceptions’ would/should be known about within say the QVMAG’s Community of Ownership & Interest. 

In addition, the brief for the consultancy would need to be known in order that the consultation process is relevant and its outcomes assessable relative to the brief. For whatever reason, the consultant's brief seems to regarded as 'confidential' under the the provisions of SECTION 62 of the LG Act 1993.

Question 12: Duration of Consultancy

Question 12: When did the process commence and when is it due to be completed? 

Response: The process commenced in May 2016 with the engagement of the external expert. The process is expected to continue over an extended period with work moving from one task to the next. The delivery of the cultural strategy and resulting recommendations will frame how "the process" continues. 

MY RESPONSE: Again, the question was addressed to the Aldermen individually and collectively and not management. However, an open-ended process as is being portrayed here does not appear to allow for ongoing review or the reporting of the reviews in an open, transparent and timely way. 

By extension it appears to set up a circumstance where accountability appears to be discretionary. Moreover, the response here is the adverse to what’s set out as being Council’s Vision, Mission and Values: https://www.launceston.tas.gov.au/Council/Our-Vision-Mission-and-Values … and arguably, it does not even to attempt to conform to these things in any substantial way.

Question 13: Confidentiality

Question 13: If any of the information relative to the questions above are confidential, why would that be? 

Response: There are many reasons why information is confidential which will not be listed here as they would seem obvious What can be said is: 

 (a) Information is often confidential at a point in time; ideas discussed and views developed at a subsequent stage in a process the information becomes public. 

 (b) The democratic process we operate under involves electing people to make decisions on behalf of the community. Informing and engaging with the community is an important part of this process. 

This process does not mean information which for sound reason is viewed as confidential should not be treated accordingly. 

MY RESPONSE: Again, the question was addressed to the Aldermen individually and collectively and not management. As previously the response seeks to circumvent the issue to hand. The ’victim’ here is clearly accountability and as above the response is the adverse to what’s set out as being Council’s Vision, Mission and Values: https://www.launceston.tas.gov.au/Council/Our-Vision-Mission-and-Values … and arguably, it does not even to attempt doing so.

Moreover, there is an apparent reliance upon SECTION 62 of the LG Act 1993 to disguise any shortfalls this kind of questioning might expose.

Question 14: QVMAG Performance Reviews

Question 14: Have you as aldermen initiated any kind of reporting protocols to enable you to effectively review the QVMAG as a component of the Council's operation given the value/s of, and the nature of, its collections and the significance of the QVMAG's recurrent expenditures? 

Response: The separation of policy and operational roles that appropriately exist under the Act for good governance of Councils frames the reporting processes that apply to all directorates of the Council. Significant policies, such as those relative to the collection, are determined by the Council. Detailed budget information is provided to Aldermen as part of the annual process. Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery also produces an annual report which is publically available, presented at the Council's Annual General Meeting and provided to the State Government. 

MY RESPONSE: Firstly, the issue of the separation of the governance/trusteeship and management roles is at root of the question being posed here. It is clear that the two roles have become fundamentally blurred in practice in so much as it is implied in the response. 

The QVMAG’s Annual Report in an ‘operational report’ that, on the available evidence, is simply a catalogue the institution’s activity. Essentially the institution is not exposed to any kind of rigorous, open and transparent critical review process by the aldermen/trustees given this resonse to the question.

Indeed it seems that the aldermen/trustees have not established relevant KPI's to guide management in their 'operational role'.

Question 15: QVMAG Strategic Purpose

Question 15: Are you as aldermen completely satisfied that QVMAG operation is fulfilling its strategic purpose. 

Response: I understand Aldermen are satisfied regarding the basis of continual improvement and a rigorous process is now in place to fulfil its strategic purpose. 

MY RESPONSE: Again, the question was addressed to the Aldermen individually and collectively and not management. The fact that the response has been provided by management there is an inherent lack of credibility in this response not to mention an element of unenlightening self-service.

Question 16:QVMAG Outcomes Relative To Investment

Question 16: Are you as aldermen completely satisfied that the QVMAG's metrics reflect the appropriate outcomes for such an institution in a 21st C context given the levels of public investment in it over an extended period? 

Response: Improving operation performance is an objective for the Museum as it is for all Council activities. 

MY RESPONSE: Again, the question was addressed to the Aldermen individually and collectively and not management. The response here is reflective of 'corporate management's' and the institution’s apparent acceptance of the institutions 'plateauing'. Indeed, the QVMAG attendances over a number of years and management's 'cost-centre-management-paradigm' exemplifies this. 

On the available evidence the Aldermen/Trustees seem to accept the metrics that show that the average cost per QVMAG visitation is something in the order of $45 – approx $30 of which is funded by ratepayers via their rate demands. What might the appropriate level be taking into  account the delivered social and cultural dividends?

Likewise, on the available evidence Aldermen/Trustees seem to accept this metric as being adequate, appropriate satisfactory, whatever and moreover equitable albeit that the metrics show that ratepayers are individually, and compulsorily, investing something like an annual $135 contribution via their rates. Thy might reasonably ask:

• For what dividend? 
• For what social and cultural outcome? 

Against this background, and the fact that as the institution’s governors/trustees the aldermen/trustees do not appear to appear to have established relevant KPIs to measure outcomes against expectations. Given this there is considerable reason to question the institution’s operational outcomes yet there appears to be no mechanism by which it can be measured.

Question 17: QVMAG Social License

Question 17: Are you as Aldermen completely satisfied that QVMAG operation is adequately resourced to succeed as a vital cultural institution with 'social license' to deliver the social, cultural and 'trickle down' fiscal dividends it has the potential to do? 

Response: The Council provides a very significant financial resource from the City of Launceston ratepayers to the ongoing operation of the Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery. Improving on the 'value for money' aspect is an objective for the Museum as it is for all Council activities.

MY RESPONSE : Again, the question was addressed to the Aldermen individually and collectively and not management. Yet again, the response here is reflective of 'corporate management's' world-view in regard to the QVMAG as an institution. Concerningly,  management's, and by reflection the aldermen/trustees', apparent acceptance of the 'status quo' Ibdoes nor bode well for there to be a 21st Century assessment/reassessment of the QVMAG operation.

Indeed, the QVMAG's lack of meaningful KPIs. and Council's apparent disconnects with the institution become a real concern when one starts to look at and assess 'performance outcomes'. There is a great deal to be said about all this but they are discussions for another time.

What is apparent here is that the Council's operational wing is self-absorbed in bureaucratic 'position protection' that it looses sight of, and connections with, the issues that give an institution like the QVMAG its social license. However, it must be said that this primarily applies to to that part of Council's operational wing that not directly involved in the QVMAG operation.

Consequently, it appears that the QVMAG's Community of Ownership and Interest is pooly served Launceston City Council's stewardship of all that is invested in, and has been invested in, the QVMAG's collections etc. over 125 years now. Sadly it appears that issues such as the institutions role in cultural tourism, for whatever reason, is regarded as being peripheral by the aldermen/trustees and Council's senior management.

It is unproductive to consider that all this might be an an indication of the 'plot being lost' but Kristen Tracy – author of young people's books and the book – "Lost It", tells us about “parents [who] had basically abdicated their roles as guardians and [the child] was building a bomb. In order to kill a poodle.” , somehow all this resonates with Kristen's words.