REPORTS

FROM THE QVMAG'S LAST 

PUBLISHED ANNUAL REPORT

CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION [ABOUT] • [THE REPORT] • [POLICIES]

NOTE: This diagram of the institution's structure depicts an organisation that does not acknowledge the institution's 'ownership/s' and/or its governance. It is indeed an accurate overview of 'management's self-vision' and by implication it is an exemplar of the institution's largely self determined understanding of itself as some kind of 'bureaucratic fief' with medieval resonances and enjoying the patronage of Launceston City Council. By extension, its the city's ratepayers, the State Government taxpayers, donors and sponsors – stakeholders, Community of Ownership & Interest (COI) – who by-and-large fund the institution. 

While 'accountability' is claimed to be delivered via "Council's AGMs" in practice it is not a forum within which the QVMAG's performance, policy relevance, social and/or culture dividends, program development, etc. can be effectively discussed in any meaningful way. Arguably, the institution's stakeholders/COI have no meaningful accountability mechanisms open to them given that the Aldermen/Trustees typically defer to management  – effectively the GM – to field all matters to do with accountability – thus blurring the roles of governance & management. 

Somewhat pointedly the annual report in fact only addresses itself to "Minister for the Arts", a funding agency, and not to the City of Launceston Council, and thus its constituency – or at least not in any formal way.

Importantly, and concerningly, the institution does not make its policies and strategic planning available for 'public scrutiny' while depending entirely 'public funding' to sustain the institution's operation. This is but one example of the institution's disinclination to be accountable to the public – its COI/stakeholders.

Arguably, the QVMAG is not functionally accountable to Council's constituents while they pay a hidden compulsory 'levy' within their rates that meets the institution's recurrent costs. 

Inexplicably, it appears as if the institution's charter has been removed from its website thus effectively removing a reference equivalent to its 'constitution' against which it might be measured. By extension this compounds the institutions functional lack of accountability.

NOTE: Document now available _ Click Here

BY WAY OF COMPARISON & CONTRAST

 THE TMAG'S 

LAST PUBLISHED ANNUAL REPORT

CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION [ABOUT] • [THE REPORT] • [POLICIES]

NOTE: This diagram of the institution's structure depicts an organisation that openly, and proactively, acknowledges the institution's 'ownership/s' and its governance mechanism. The TMAG Annual Report is indeed a true overview of the institution. By extension, it clearly demonstrates the State Government taxpayers, donors and sponsors – stakeholders, Community of Ownership & Interest (COI) – who by-and-large fund the institution. 

While 'accountability' is clearly delivered, the TMAG's performance, policy relevance, social or culture dividends, program development, etc. can be effectively discussed in a meaningful way via the COI's 'parliamentary representatives'. Arguably, the institution's stakeholders/COI do have meaningful accountability mechanisms open to them given that the institution's operation is oversighted by The Auditor General  – see TAO Report  here [1] 

Arguably, the TMAG is functionally and proactively accountable to it 'COI-cum-constituency' given that they pay State taxes that that in turn meet the institution's annual and ongoing recurrent costs.