QVMAG GOVERNANCE & MANAGEMENT

CONTEXT

This exchange of correspondence sets out the cultural paradigm within which the QVMAG's governance and management operates. Given that the QVMAG is a City of Launceston 'Cost Centre' the institution can only survive if it works within its allocated budget. Moreover, the budget allocation can only be as large as Council can levy ratepayers and can persuade the State Government to provide for. 

In over 125 years the QVMAG collections have grown to such a proportion and of such significance that they now are a significant component of 'The National Estate'. Consequently, and in various contexts, there is a great deal at risk and possibly more still at stake given all that has been invested in the institution and its collections.

The functional blurring of the roles and purposes of 'governance and management' arguably places not only the institution at risk but also elements of the collections. It is now important that a root and branch investigation of the institution is undertaken. 

This is especially so in regard to its 'ownerships'  in law and lore. Consequent to that, arguably, the status of the institution's 'strategic purpose' and 'policy sets' need to be reviewed in a 21st Century context.

 The correspondence thread below, and elsewhere onn the site, i believe confirms that the blurring of the purpose of governance with the function of management is endemic and something that has evolved over time in a relatively deliberate way. I do not believe that this situation pertains in any other large public 'musingplace' in Australia.

 The most concerning thing is lack of accountability that flows from the burring of the purpose of governance – policy determination and strategic planning – and the function of management – the implementation of policies and the delivery of programs. Accountability is that factor that holds everything together and often against the odds

 At their very best, 21st Century musingplaces – museums and art galleries of all kinds – are cultural cum social enterprises that offer participatory partnerships between the public and the organisation. In doing so they provide many people - young and old - with the chance to grow value in communities. In addition there are incentives to 'suceed' and generate income doing so. They enable people to learn new things, have new experiences and develop new understandings – for some it will be a welcomed second chance. In such enterprises 'accountability' tends to look after itself.

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

From Ray Norman Date: Tuesday April 24

Dear Albert, Alderman and Richard Mulvaney,

Richard, thank you for the response you have provided on behalf of the Aldermen/Trustees albeit that the time for it has passed. Currently, I am in the midst of taking advice on this matter but I do understand that you’ve been away from the city conferencing. 

To be plain, this is a matter for governance – one for the Aldermen/Trustees – and arguably whoever it is who has deemed that ‘strategic planning’ is an ‘an operational matter’ was, and is, misguided to say the very least. Clearly, strategic planning is a policy matter albeit that at their very best planning processes are done collaboratively with governance and management contributing to the process cooperatively – that’s not in evidence here however. To be relevant, and functional, there needs to be Community of Ownership & Interest engagement – that is stakeholders and others with various interest and ownerships invested in the QVMAG and in the collections etc. neither is that evident. 

Community engagement seems to have been assiduously avoided in the process laid out. So, the question arises, what is there to fear?

More than interestingly, it seems that the process engaged with what might be called ‘selected stakeholders’ even if I’m struggling to see what their pecuniary interests might be and/or why it’s not understood that to some extent there may be conflicted interests involved. Furthermore Richard, you refer to “Internal organisations such as the Arts Foundation [and] QVMAG Friends”.  I am imagining that both groups are not a part of the ‘QVMAG operation’. Rather, they would be better understood as auxiliary groups or affiliated groups – nonetheless ‘interest groups’ but not internal organisations. This would not, and should not, exclude them from any consultation process. 

Against this background I’m also imagining that a diligent ‘governing body’ might very well characterise the consultative group you describe here Richard as being “cherry picked” – even if it is a somewhat colourful way to characterise these groups.

The element that’s most obviously missing here is ‘public consultation’. Given what’s been invested in the institution by ratepayers, taxpayer, donors and sponsors for well over 125 years that seems to be a blindingly obvious omission. As for a Strategic Plan being claimed to be ‘internal and staff directional’, and not ‘policy’, well that looks lot like a phantom pregnancy – like pregnancy, policy doesn’t come in incremental bits … it is or it isn’t what it purports to be. Policy making is a governance matter pure and simple.

Moreover, a ‘policy’ – strategic plan as it describes itself in this instance – that lacks a purpose is ever likely to be described as purposeless and self-serving – rudderless even. Management is unable to function optimally and deliver on any of governance’s policy determinations: 
  • Unless they are purposeful; 
  • Unless they articulate a clear and unambiguous set of objectives; 
  • Unless they are founded upon well considered and strongly put rationales; 
  • Unless they articulate and prioritise the strategies to be tested and implemented; and
  • Unless there are relatively unambiguous performance indicators to measure outcomes against and reassess strategies against when and where appropriate.

A situation where the master is simultaneously the servant is without doubt conflicted to say the least.

Going right out on a limb, on the evidence here it appears to be quite clear that the functions/purposes of governance and the roles of management are currently so blurred as to be dysfunctional. Moreover, the roles appear to be so blurred as to render the QVMAG, as an operation, functionally unaccountable to its constituency.

It does rather seem that there is unlikely to be any substantial change based on the response I’ve received. For the process to make any real headway at all, change is unlikely if all that happens is that ‘management’ gets to have another crack at the task it didn’t deliver upon earlier. 

What’s actually at risk here is a series of rather important collections built up over 125 years and the functional access to them. That the collections have an estimated dollar value of something in the order of $231Million, and that  the institution’s annual recurrent cost is something in the order of $6Million plus, accountability is also a serious and unavoidable matter.

Under SECTION 62 of the Local Government Act it has already been discussed in my hearing, and more than once, that the institution has over collected and some of it needs to be disposed of. With the current deaccession policy(?) that is in place that is rather worrying talk. And to be clear, I’m not suggesting collection items should not be removed from a collection. It is how it is done, and then why of it done that is the issue. Like strategic planning it must be purposeful, objective, rational and strategic. 

Then there is the QVMAG’s accession policy. Like, deaccession it too must be purposeful, objective, rational and strategic. I submit that both policies are less than they might be in a 21st Century context.

It appears as if, on the evidence, as Aldermen/Trustees you have abandoned the institution to its own devices and are quite comfortable in regard to conscripting the required funding from residents and ratepayers in large part. The hapless residents and ratepayers have no real recourse once their protests fall upon deaf ears. 

I submit that the current situation being addressed here is an abdication of the QVMAG’s ‘purpose for being’. Furthermore, there is the failure of the trust that is invested in Council’s governance of, and management of, one of Australia’s very important cultural assets. Too much is at risk. One way or another the QVMAG needs to become a 21st Century institution that is functionally accountable.

Regards,

Ray Norman
Ray Norman
<zingHOUSEunlimited>
The lifestyle design enterprise and research network
EMAIL 1: raynorman7250@bigpond.com
40 Delamere Crescent Trevallyn TAS. 7250
WEBsite: http://www.raynorman7250.blogspot.com

“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

Extract from Council minutes Feb 5 2018
FEB 5 Agenda 12.2: “The QVMAG Strategic Plan 2017-2022 was tabled. It includes a new Vision and Mission Statement and provides a series of Objectives aligned with the QVMAG Directorate Plan.”
Minute 12.2 Museum Governance Advisory Board Meeting - 21 December 2017 FILE NO: SF2244 AUTHOR: Richard Mulvaney (Director QVMAG) DECISION STATEMENT: 
To receive and consider a report from the Museum Governance Advisory Board Meeting held on 21 December 2017. 
RECOMMENDATION: That Council receives the report from the Museum Governance Advisory Board Meeting held on 21 December 2017.

From: Richard Mulvaney
Date: Monday, 23 April 2018 at 4:05 pm
To: Ray Norman
Subject: FW: QVMAG Strategic Plan Questions

Dear Mr Norman 

Thank you for your enquiry regarding the QVMAG Strategic Plan 2017-2022. I have been asked to reply. 

The QVMAG Strategic Plan 2017-2022 was developed with consultation from within QVMAG through the QVMAG Leadership Group. Internal organisations such as the Arts Foundation, QVMAG Friends and Museum Governance Advisory Board were consulted. 

The Strategic Plan was approved by the Museum Governance Advisory Board at its meeting on 21 December 2017 and listed in the MGAB meeting report to Council at the meeting of 5 February 2018 as Council was in recess over the summer. 

It was regarded as Operational which is why it did not go to Council workshop. It was for the direction of the staff and it was not seen as a 'policy' document requiring Council endorsement. However on the basis of your enquiry I am re-presenting it to Executive Management Team to assess this again. 

Regards, Richard 

Richard Mulvaney I Director I Queen Victoria Museum & Art Gallery and Princess Theatre
T 03 6323 3700 I F 03 6323 3776 I M 0409 744 392 I www.qvmag.tas.gov.au


From: Ray Norman 
Sent: Sunday, 15 April 2018 3:13 PM
To: Mayor
Subject: QVMAG Strategic Plan

Dear Albert & Aldermen,

I write to you today in your capacities as the default ‘Trustees’ of QVMAG and its collections. Prior to meeting with Hirst Projects on Friday I visited the QVMAG Website to refresh my memory on a couple of matters including the QVMAG’s Strategic Plan – documented and copied online here … https://file7250culture.blogspot.com.au/p/qvvmag-strategig-plan.html

I was somewhat surprised to discover an updated 2018 – 2022 QVMAG Strategic Plan was online and apparently formally in operation. It seems quite clear that this policy document has been prepared by management and it is disappointing that through the Strategic Plan the operation is articulating its (Trustees/Council’s?) aspirational ‘Vision’ and ‘Mission’ it is not articulating the QVMAG’s Purpose.

Moreover, the plan does not articulate rationales for the ‘Objectives’ which in some ways is understandable given that there is no articulated purpose to frame them against. Following on from that there are no unambiguous ‘performance indicators’ albeit that there are ‘somewhat soft’ visions of “how success will look”. Consequently, in reviewing the QVMAG operation’s performance relative to purpose there does not appear to be adequate, and unambiguous, criteria via which such a thing can be measured and credibly assessed.

Against this background questions to do with how this came about arise. They are:
  1. When was this policy document adopted by Council?
  2. What expert advice was provided in accord with Section 65 of the Local Govt. Act and consequently did you as the Aldermen/Trustees rely?
  3. Is it at all possible that the policy has not been approved by Aldermen/Trustees?

I submit that given what is at risk, and all that is at stake, this is a non-trivial matter and I would appreciate clarification in regard to the matters I’m raising here by the close of business Tuesday April 17.  I look forward to receiving your advice before I seek further advice in the context of Council’s functional accountability.

Yours sincerely,

Ray Norman

Ray Norman
<zingHOUSEunlimited>
The lifestyle design enterprise and research network
EMAIL 1: raynorman7250@bigpond.com
40 Delamere Crescent Trevallyn TAS. 7250
WEBsite: http://www.raynorman7250.blogspot.com

“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


 On 25/08/2017 7:52 am, "Robert Dobrzynski" wrote:

 Dear Mr Norman,
I believe you have been responded to regarding this matter on more than one  occasion.
The Cultural Strategy currently in process is being undertaken through the authority provided to the General Manager to manage all assets and human  resources of the Council and to do anything necessary or convenient to effect such purpose.


These provisions are within the Local Government Act 1993, legislation that I  am sure you are very well acquainted with.

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. It has now been agreed by Council and the General Manager to work with a unity of purpose to complete the Cultural Strategy project commissioned by the  General Manager and being undertaken by Robyn Archer.

It is not my intention to continually respond to your repeated questions on   these matters.

Regards,  Robert

Sent from my iPhone


On 24 Aug 2017, at 8:54 pm, Ray Norman 7250 <raynorman7250> wrote:

Dear Mayor, Aldermen and General Manager,


I write to remind you that it is now two years since Council determined in open Council and at the end of a process that explored various options, Council determined that the Queen Victoria Museum & Art Gallery (QVMAG) was to have a standalone board of  management cum governance body. Clearly that was Council playing its role as a 'policy determiner' in regard to the QVMAG and historically something Launceston Councils over time have done very little in regard to. Also, to my knowledge the determination made August 2015 has not been rescinded and thus stands as Council policy albeit not acted upon.


Since that time Council's Management has apparently operated under the guidance of SECTION 62 of the Local Govt. Act and the general manager's powers set out there, namely "The general manager may do anything necessary or convenient to perform his or her functions under this or any other Act." On the evidence the general manager has not found it 'convenient' to put a Council policy determination in place and into practice. Given all that is at stake, and indeed all that is at risk, this is  more than unfortunate and especially so in regard to the best practice governance and management of the QVMAG.


Aldermen are the QVMAG's Trustees (Governors) yet it is now legendary that QVMAG matters almost never appear on Council’s agendas to be discussed in open council in accord with the QVMAG's 'purpose for being' and in accord with Council's accountability to the institution's funders, Community of Interest and stakeholders – State Govt., ratepayers, donors, sponsors et al.


This is not because, as it appears that the general manager has apparently determined, there is no need for the institution's 'Trustees' to determine and review the institution's:

• Purpose for being and the currency of its objectives;

• Funding relative to its programming and infrastructure needs;
• Policy matters – collection policies, programming priorities, research priorities, etc;
• Strategic planning in regard to the institution's ongoing operation and management; and
• Appoint and/or confirm the appointment of appropriate personnel with appropriate expertise as required.



Rather, the contrary is the case and on the evidence management has blurred the function and roles of governance and management and arguably to the detriment of the QVMAG as an institution not to mention Council’s constituency.


Interestingly, today we see in the press this situation being articulated out loud in regard to the Australian Olympic Committee’s disconnections between governance and management and the bullying plus other negative impacts that have resulted in documented and unsatisfactory outcomes. SEE http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/olympics-2016/aoc-to-release-findings-of-workplace-culture-review-in-wake-of-bullying-claims/news-story/0a96909449db80a7fa82cea32f39cca0


The situation set out here in regard to the QVMAG is non-trivial, given all the implied risks. Moreover the situation is arguably unsustainable. So what is actually at risk?


• The QVMAG collections are valued at something in the order of $230million plus and they represent a significant component of what might be understood as 'The National Estate';

• The social and cultural dividends expected as a consequence of the annual 'levied' investment of approx. $4million by Launceston ratepayers – Approx $150 per ratable property and approx 10% of many properties’ rate bill ;
• The social and cultural dividends expected as a consequence of the annual State Govt. investment of $1.3million plus towards recurrent costs;

• The programming relevant to appropriate community cultural and social dividends;

• The full and part-time employment of something in the order of 60 people (47EFT) with its consequent 'trickledown effect' many/most of whom would not otherwise find employment in the region/State(?);

• Social, scientific and cultural research opportunities relative the Tamar Region and Tasmania and the consequent new knowledge and new understandings that flow from that and that in turn deliver commensurate dividends.



Against this background it is clear that the institution is virtually rudderless in regard to its accountable operation and in the clear sight of 'The Trustees' who have, arguably, 'been looking the other way'.


Of course, due to the professionalism of key people on the QVMAG's staff, the institution has been able to survive and function, albeit in a limited way, in this undeniably flawed circumstance. However, the institution's ability to succeed in ways relative to the short and long term investments in QVMAG infrastructure, programming, collections and personnel is without a doubt seriously reduced. In addition, by now you would all be aware of the extent that 'cultural tourism' is currently impacts upon the Tasmanian economy as extraction and manufacturing industries' impacts wane.


References



More to the point the institution is in an inferior position than otherwise should be the case. In 21st Century context 20th Century status quoism should not be tolerated given all that is at risk and at stake given the level of investment in the institution over 125 years by Launcestonian, Tasmanians and others.


Plainly the QVMAG's governance and management operating model is no longer fit for purpose or relevant to its current circumstances. Plainly Council aldermen, as the institution's 'Trustees', for multiple reasons, have not functioned adequately or have withdrawn from their ‘trusteeship’ role for all practical purposes for whatever reason. This has been the case for quite some time.


It has been drawn to my attention that Robin Archer has been appointed as a consultant in some kind of 'cultural context'. I've asked several times for a copy of her brief and/or the report that she has apparently produced and for unfathomable reasons I've been informed that they have both been deemed "confidential by the general manger". 
SEE Previous Correspondence ]
Consequently, I along with other constituents, have been unable to fully contextualise any of this relative to the circumstances I lay out here. Suffice to say all this is as mystifying to me and others as it must be if the QVMAG's funders reviewing their QVMAG investment, contribution or support.



It is evident that you as 'Trustees' have allowed this state of affairs to arise. It is also clear that all this represents a scenario where accountability has been deemed to be discretionary by the general manager under the auspices of SECTION 62 of the Act. If allowed to persist there is little doubt that significant failures are at risk of arising.


For the duration of the general manager’s tenure the governance and accountability of the as is evidenced by by this OPEN LETTER dated August 2010 has been a serious and ongoing concern. SEE http://www.tasmaniantimes.com.au/index.php/pr-article/open-letter-the-queen-victoria-museum-and-art-gallery


I look forward to your response at your earliest convenience given the seriousness of this matter and all that is at risk.
Regards,     Ray

Ray Norman
<zingHOUSEunlimited>
The lifestyle design enterprise and research network
PH: 03-6334xxxx
EMAIL 1: raynorman
40 Delamere Crescent Trevallyn TAS. 7250
WEBsite: http://www.raynorman7250.blogspot.com

CLICK HERE: http://www.launceston.tas.gov.au/lcc/index.php?c=69
LINK
http://www.dpac.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/271170/Good_Governance_Guide_May_2016.pdf

“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

zHu Electronic Communications Policy.

This email is confidential, and is for the intended recipient only. Access, disclosure, copying, distribution, or reliance on any of it by anyone outside the intended recipients  is prohibited and may be a criminal offence. Please delete if obtained in error and email confirmation to the sender. The views expressed in this email are not necessarily the views of zingHOUSEunlimited, unless clearly intended otherwise.

[http://api.launceston.tas.gov.au/eCard/disclaimer/twitter.png]<https://twitter.com/LtonCityCouncil>[http://api.launceston.tas.gov.au/eCard/disclaimer/youtube.png] <http://www.youtube.com/user/LauncestonCtyCouncil> [http://api.launceston.tas.gov.au/eCard/disclaimer/www.png] <http://www.launceston.tas.gov.au> [http://api.launceston.tas.gov.au/eCard/disclaimer/LCC_YVYL.png] <http://yourvoiceyourlaunceston.com.au/>

Please consider the environment before printing this, or any other e-mail or document.

________________________________________
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER

Information in this transmission is intended only for the person(s) to whom it is addressed and may contain privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying or dissemination of the information is unauthorised and you should delete/destroy all copies and notify the sender. No liability is accepted for any unauthorised use of the information contained in this transmission.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)