I write in my capacities as an Australian citizen, a Launceston resident and ratepayer, a cultural producer who has intellectual property invested in the Queen Victoria Museum & Art Gallery (QVMAG) and an independent researcher who uses the institution both as a resource and as a subject of my research.
Against this background I regard myself as a member of the institution's Community of Ownership & Interest and not as a 'ranked stakeholder' in the way I have clearly been characterized in regard to the current QVMAG Feasibility Study. I fail the 'stakeholder test' in so much as I have nothing to win and nothing to lose – certainly I have no income at stake.
I submit that the information collected together here on this website demonstrates that the QVMAG's governance and management have become fundamentally blurred and intertwined over time. Furthermore, I submit that I believe this results in failures relative to functional accountability notwithstanding 'council's' protests to the contrary.
I do understand that the idiosyncrasies of the Tasmanian Local Government Act 1993 the Act does provide for a clear delineation between 'governance and management' even if a general manager can use SECTION 62 for purposes of her/his convenience – not to mention the invocation of confidentiality.
I do understand that the idiosyncrasies of the Tasmanian Local Government Act 1993 the Act does provide for a clear delineation between 'governance and management' even if a general manager can use SECTION 62 for purposes of her/his convenience – not to mention the invocation of confidentiality.
Whilst I am unable to understand just why Council – Mayor, Aldermen & General Manager – believe that the QVMAG cannot have an appointed 'governance body', one peopled by 'experts' in the appropriate fields. The risks attached to not having one, I submit poses too many risks – non trivial risks.
SECTION 65 of the Act speaks of expert advice, yet in regard to the QVMAG there is little or no evidence of independent expert, frank and fearless advice relative to 'QVMAG policy and planning'. The 2018–2022 QVMAG Strategic Plan invoked without Council/Trustee endorsement/adoption is a case in point. ... See Correspondence Thread Here
Increasingly, I have become concerned in regard to Launceston Council's reluctance to engage with its constituency where there are demonstrated implications for ratepayers and where accountability appears to have become a matter of discretion rather than any kind of obligation.
Launceston's ratepayers are obliged to pay a 'annually conscripted levy' to the QVAMAG, via their rates, that can represent something approaching 10% of their total rate demand in some cases. Against this background, and disappointingly, Launceston's aldermen – QVMAG trustees by default – appear to have placed themselves beyond the reach of criticism and critique.
I believe that the QVMAG's Community of Ownership & Interest, its stakeholders, its donors, its sponsors, et al all have various values invested in the QVMAG's operational infrastructure not to mention the various collections. Arguably, all this is placed at risk due to questions to do with accountability that, arguably, runs to a denial of natural justice.
I submit that against this background there is a case to be put that it is now timely to launch some form of Public Inquiry, Citizen's Jury or an independent operational audit focused upon the QVMAG's governance and its accountability. The operation's management can only be as accountable as its governance requires of it.
I refer this matter to you for your consideration and action as appropriate.
Yours sincerely,
Ray Norman
Disclaimer: Whilst all due care and attention has been given to the compilation of this report, no responsibility is accepted for any errors or omissions that may have occurred. Nor should this report be considered as constituting professional advice. Parties wishing to use or act on any of the contents of this report are advised to seek their own, independent advice before doing so.
