NO RESPONSE RECEIVED
____________________________
From: Ray Norman <raynorman7250@bigpond.com>
Date: Tuesday, 13 March 2018 at 7:53 pm
Date: Tuesday, 13 March 2018 at 7:53 pm
Dear Albert,
Thank you for your letter dated March 2. I’m assuming that you wrote on behalf of all Aldermen/Trustees. Having taken my time to carefully consider your response against my various experiences and the concerns that I have I’ve raised with you and all Trustees there are some things to be said. Firstly, it seems that your response sets a standard upon which ratepayers can rely. Indeed, it is a landmark response and of a kind within which you seem to be setting the standard by which you wish to be judged. In fact, it might well be envisaged as a ‘benchmark’ looking ahead.
In responding as you have, am I to assume that you are placing yourself, and the other Aldermen/Trustees beyond the reach of criticism and critique? Moreover, when you say that you “entirely disagree” with my position, are you in fact telling me that the evidence I that rely upon cannot be trusted and that it is not factual? You appear to be ‘deeming’ that the status quo is adequate, or appropriate, or are you deeming it to be it best practice or standard practice?
SECTION 65 of the Local Government Act requires the General Manager to provide Council with expert advice in the determination of policies and the development of the strategies required to carry them out. Are you telling me that in regard to contemporaneous best practice relative to the broad scope of the QVMAG as an institution, that you have received such advice? Are you telling me, or implying, that the advice you now rely upon is truly independent, expert in all areas of concern and thus your governance of the QVMAG is beyond criticism and critique?
You have been made aware by people other than myself of the flaws embedded in SECTION 62 of the Local Government Act and as a consequence I must ask, in regard to the concerns I’ve raised with you and the other Aldermen/Trustees. Are you satisfied that your constituency has been, and is being, well served by this aspect of the Act in this case? Moreover, do you regard the outcomes, relative to my concerns to date, as being beyond criticism and critique?
The evidence upon which you are apparently relying upon I put to you, and the Aldermen/Trustees, is contentious and open to challenge despite your ‘deeming’ it to be otherwise. You challenge my characterisation of the QVMAG operation like a ‘rudderless’ ship. Well, with respect I offer an alternative metaphor – a leaking and rusting ship anchored midstream and attempting to hold fast against the tides and ‘the flood’. Then again what I’m attempting to describe might just be a case of a break in the linkages between the wheelhouse and the rudder.
In any event in attempting to maintain the status quo it seems that what is being missed here is the fact that the quo is fast losing its status – some might well argue that it is already lost.
Given all that is at risk in regard to the QVMAG such as:
- Its collections being valued at $240Million – and a component of the ‘National Estate’;
- The social and cultural dividends from such substantial long-term conscripted investment ratepayers have made and continue to make;
- The millions upon millions of dollars taxpayers, donors and sponsors have contributed over time to the institution; and given that,
you and the other Aldermen/Trustees appear to be placing yourselves beyond the reach of critical review, well it is untenable.
All this is especially concerning taking into consideration what ratepayers, taxpayers, sponsors and donors have entrusted the QVMAG with culturally, socially and fiscally – and by extension what you have been trusted with.
You invite me to change my focus relative to the QVMAG. It is something I’ve been trying to do for some time but I keep on being confronted by various shortcomings that get in the way of my research efforts. Consequently, we’ve been forced to look elsewhere. That has been profitable and productive – and delivering a myriad of outcomes as I write. This is disappointing in regard to the QVMAG but more to the point, this experience only highlights the criticism and critiques I’ve alerted you to in regard to QVMAG governance over many years.
As a researcher, I’m obliged take into account all the information I come across and see what I see – warts and all. So, respectfully, I must advise that I entirely disagree with your position and to the extent that other Aldermen/Trustees share your position I must challenge their positions as well.
Regards,
Ray
WICKER WONDERLUST – https://designtasmania.com.au/wicker-wonderlust/
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