From: Ray Norman
<raynorman7250@bigpond.com>
Date: Friday, 27 October 2017 4:06 pm
To: "Auditor General [Tas]" <admin@audit.tas.gov.au>
Subject: The Integrity & Accountability of the
Queen Victoria Museum
& Art Gallery (QVMAG) Launceston
Dear Auditor General b&Integrity Commission
RE: Queen Victoria Museum & Art Gallery (QVMAG)
The Metrics • Community Investment in QVMAG • The
Operational Model • Perceived Risks • The Blurring of Governance &
Management Functions • Collection policy • Deaccession • Strategic Planning •
Business cum Enterprise Planning • Risk Management •
Aldermanic Acknowledgement of QVMAG Governance Role • The Status Quo V’s Change
• Consultation Paradigm • Local Govt. Act 1993 & SECTIONS 65 & 62 •
Accountability
Launceston City Council is the biggest spending Council in
our State with budgets of around $100Million per year yet despite this,
elected aldermen appear to have abdicated most/all public responsibilities and
left all governance and strategic decision making to the General Manager and
the operational component of Council. In this, Council can be identified as the
‘trustees/governors’ for the QVMAG in so much as the aldermen are
the QVMAG’s governing body and thus a very high level of trust and
stewardship is invested in their roles as aldermen cum QVMAG ‘trustees’.
Yet the Council appears to deny this, instead allowing the
General Manager to ultimately take responsibility for almost everything. As a
consequence, ratepayers, stakeholders etc. virtually have no consideration afforded
them in QVMAG affairs. Proposals to increase QVMAG security – e.g.
deaccession policies – are ignored.
With a budget in the order of $6Million that attracts
about 133,000 visitors, ratepayers and Tasmanian taxpayers are effectively
subsidising visitors at around $45 per visitation –$30 of that being
provided by ratepayers. That level of subsidy and a business case to
support it are rarely discussed in open and transparent ways.
Purpose: The purpose of this document is to contribute to a more complete
picture of what is happening in the QVMAG to allow a comprehensive
assessment of value achieved by the QVMAG and, if warranted, providing more
professional help and direction to the Council and the QVMAG that will overcome
the more blatant failures therein.
Context: Over an extended period of time I have been looking at the
Queen Victoria Museum & Art Gallery’s (QVMAG) management and governance.
While doing so I’ve become increasingly alarmed at the institution’s
disconnects with what might be regarded as ‘best practice’ relevant
to like institutions elsewhere – Tasmania, Australia and indeed
internationally. As a ratepayer, taxpayer, researcher and cultural
producer I have a particular interest in the institution and the outcomes it
delivers and has the potential to deliver.
In order to clarify my interest and concerns, and in no
order of priority, they essentially spring from my being:
- A researcher concerned with ‘place
& placemaking’ – here a regional musingplace that is both
the subject of my research and a repository of research material;
- A cultural producer – and here
with and institution that holds examples of my work in their collections;
- A ratepayer in the city of
Launceston – and here one who along with many others contribute to the
recurrent cost of the institution and where something in the order of 10%
of rate demand supports the institution’s recurrent expenditure;
- Someone who has served on the
QVMAG’s Museum Governance Advisory Board (MGAB) and who has
been engaged in attempts to address governance and management issues
relevant to the institution;
- Someone who as a university
lecturer and cultural activist I had reason to hold in high regard the
kind of institution the QVMAG sets out to be; and
- Someone who values the economic
contribution the institution provides to the local economy via the 40
plus EFT jobs it provides and the additional trickledown 100 to 120
EFT jobs flowing from that in the wider community – many of which
would not otherwise be there.
Moreover, I am alarmed at the paradigm of questionable secrecy
and confidentiality that has come to be the ‘default standard’
that characterises the QVMAG as in institution. It is especially so in regard
to matters pertinent to its governance and management.
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 133,000 visitations
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 Launceston https://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
PH: 03-6334
2176
EMAIL 1: raynorman7250@bigpond.com
40 Delamere
Crescent Trevallyn TAS. 7250
“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