Dear Aldermen and QVMAG Trustees,
At Monday June 22nd's LCC Council Meeting you will be considering the endorsement of the QVMAG' policies workshopped the previous Monday at the SP&P Meeting. Essentially this will be a'tidy up' exercise given that Council, the QVMAG's Trustees, have not formally endorsed QVMAG policies for many years despite the necessity to do so biannually as stated in the policy documents themselves.
The QVMAG is arguably one of Tasmania's premier cultural institutions with national significance. Thus the need for best practice in governance is high. Moreover, the QVMAG is potentially one of the Tamar/Esk region's primary cultural destinations, a tourism draw card. However, more importantly it is a community cultural asset with layers of community stories invested in its collections.
The QVMAG is arguably one of Tasmania's premier cultural institutions with national significance. Thus the need for best practice in governance is high. Moreover, the QVMAG is potentially one of the Tamar/Esk region's primary cultural destinations, a tourism draw card. However, more importantly it is a community cultural asset with layers of community stories invested in its collections.
Given this the QVMAG's policy determination processes are non-trivial and deserve very serious consideration. Indeed more serious consideration than the current 'process in train' suggests and especially so given that it has all the hallmarks of the QVMAG's governance, the Trustees, informally and questionably devolving policy determination to the institution's management.
The trickle down effect of this evident 'informal devolution of authority' is arguably impacting adversely upon the institution's performance and in particular the QVMAG's capacity to deliver value – culturally and socially diverse multi-dimensional values – commensurate with significant community investments in the institution for well over a century.
Moreover, in the past decade and a half public investment in the QVMAG has grown in line with the institution's somewhat extraordinary growth within that time frame. So too has there been a dynamic growth in the institution's recurrent budget in that time along with significant shifts in Tasmania's/Launceston's economic imperatives – tourism's increasing significance being notable.
Against this background, and the QVMAG strategic review in process, I am advocating that Council as an interim measure:
1. Remove all references to dollar values in regard to the evaluation of 'value' relevant to the deaccession of any material from any QVMAG collection and/or the disposal of related items with cultural, scientific, social and/or heritage values in the institution's wider inventory.
2. Aldermen, in their role as QVMAG Trustees, be required to formally approve all items being considered for deaccession or disposal in regard to the QVMAG's collections or inventory.
3. Aldermen, in their role as QVMAG Trustees, be required to formally approve the acquisition of all items under considered for accession to a QVMAG collection albeit on the advice of the QVMAG Director and collection curators.
Furthermore, given that the policy documents offered to Council for approval are in essence a "reorganisation" of previous policy documents "that included some minor changes" [REFERENCE] their contemporary relevance and applicability is contestable, thus I am advocating:
1. That, as a matter of housekeeping, and as an interim measure, Council approve the draft policies proposed by the QVMAG's management with a sunset date of June 30 2016.
2. That, as a matter of some urgency, Council initiate an independent QVMAG policy review with a view to putting in place policies that better fit 21st C public museum and art gallery imperatives by June 30 2016.
3. That Council engage with the QVMAG's Community of Ownership & Interest – ratepayers, researchers, scholars, sponsors, donors et al – in regard to developing policies that fit Indigenous Tasmanian and wider Tasmanian and Tamar/Esk regional communities aspirations and expectations.
I provide the notes with reference links below for further contextual information.
Yours sincerely,
Ray Norman
2. That, as a matter of some urgency, Council initiate an independent QVMAG policy review with a view to putting in place policies that better fit 21st C public museum and art gallery imperatives by June 30 2016.
3. That Council engage with the QVMAG's Community of Ownership & Interest – ratepayers, researchers, scholars, sponsors, donors et al – in regard to developing policies that fit Indigenous Tasmanian and wider Tasmanian and Tamar/Esk regional communities aspirations and expectations.
I provide the notes with reference links below for further contextual information.
Yours sincerely,
Ray Norman
 |
| CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO ENLARGE |
Policy Backgrounding [REFERENCE]
While the QVMAG’s attendance numbers are plateauing, and the cost per visitor (the metric) remains high, somewhere in the order of $50 per visitation, in turn that suggests that there are unmet expectations.
By extension, that means there are others besides me who have unmet expectations, and they can be counted, and therefore they matter because they are not reducing the cost per attendance – or generating income relative to attendances/visitations/engagements.
Interestingly as a ratepayer, me personally that is, I’m only subsidising about three visitors per annum. I’d like it to be more, many many more, in order to get some bang from my bucks – rather than a chorus futz& fizes.
The Quarrel [REFERENCE]
In any event any quarrel that I have with the QVMAG and its perceived value is not with QVMAG Management, it’s with the institution’s governance – rather the lack of it, the lack of comprehension for what governance and policy determination involves.
Management has an advisory and advocacy function in regard to what’s involved in governance and after that it must stand back or be compromised. Currently the institution's management's capacity 'to deliver on its promise' it is clearly being compromised by governance failures and flaws.
The planning (the management tools) involved in delivering the ‘policy outcomes’ projected in a strategic plan (a policy document) is onerous. Consequently, strategic planning imperatives must take precedence in an operation’s management – and largely careless about bureaucratic convenience.
The QVMAG’s governance and management is fundamentally blurred. For proof we only need to look at this current cynical ‘tick-of-the-policy’ exercise that will be put to Council next Monday.
Ald. McKenzie' QVMAG Strategic Direction Committee [REFERENCE]
Ald. Hugh McKenzie's QVMAG Committee does appear to a great deal invested in the status quo. If it delivers more of the same, Council will remain on the pathway of continuing to conscript recurrent funding from ratepayers.
Currently the QVMAG essentially operates in an atmosphere of self-determined standard setting – the current set of draft policies seem to demonstrate this. If governance and management remain blurred, then the QVMAG as a self-governing, self-managing BUREAUCRATICempire is ever likely to continue to grow incrementally – albeit at the risk of being unsustainable and functionally unaccountable.
However in a 'museum context', there is also the risk there being unacceptably low levels of ethical and moral standards at work within the operation.
Status Quoism
Defending the status quo is in essence about privileging, preserving and conserving the past in order to carry it forward into the future albeit replete with patches and reinforcements.
In regard to the current policy sets before Council (the Aldermen/Trustees) it seems that Trustees are being asked to give the big tick to the maintenance of the status quo. That is, despite the unsustainability, the inbuilt and inherited ethical problems not to mention any inherited immoralities.
Currently, the Aboriginal elephant in the room to do with QVMAG policy and programming is seemingly being ignored. Leadership in policy determination would seem to demand that:
The rider on approving these policies should be that they be replaced within 12 months with 21st C relevant policies determined outside the aegis of management albeit taking into account managerial/operational concerns and advice.
By extension, that means there are others besides me who have unmet expectations, and they can be counted, and therefore they matter because they are not reducing the cost per attendance – or generating income relative to attendances/visitations/engagements.
Interestingly as a ratepayer, me personally that is, I’m only subsidising about three visitors per annum. I’d like it to be more, many many more, in order to get some bang from my bucks – rather than a chorus futz& fizes.
The Quarrel [REFERENCE]
In any event any quarrel that I have with the QVMAG and its perceived value is not with QVMAG Management, it’s with the institution’s governance – rather the lack of it, the lack of comprehension for what governance and policy determination involves.
Management has an advisory and advocacy function in regard to what’s involved in governance and after that it must stand back or be compromised. Currently the institution's management's capacity 'to deliver on its promise' it is clearly being compromised by governance failures and flaws.
The planning (the management tools) involved in delivering the ‘policy outcomes’ projected in a strategic plan (a policy document) is onerous. Consequently, strategic planning imperatives must take precedence in an operation’s management – and largely careless about bureaucratic convenience.
The QVMAG’s governance and management is fundamentally blurred. For proof we only need to look at this current cynical ‘tick-of-the-policy’ exercise that will be put to Council next Monday.
Ald. McKenzie' QVMAG Strategic Direction Committee [REFERENCE]
Ald. Hugh McKenzie's QVMAG Committee does appear to a great deal invested in the status quo. If it delivers more of the same, Council will remain on the pathway of continuing to conscript recurrent funding from ratepayers.
Currently the QVMAG essentially operates in an atmosphere of self-determined standard setting – the current set of draft policies seem to demonstrate this. If governance and management remain blurred, then the QVMAG as a self-governing, self-managing BUREAUCRATICempire is ever likely to continue to grow incrementally – albeit at the risk of being unsustainable and functionally unaccountable.
However in a 'museum context', there is also the risk there being unacceptably low levels of ethical and moral standards at work within the operation.
Status Quoism
Defending the status quo is in essence about privileging, preserving and conserving the past in order to carry it forward into the future albeit replete with patches and reinforcements.
In regard to the current policy sets before Council (the Aldermen/Trustees) it seems that Trustees are being asked to give the big tick to the maintenance of the status quo. That is, despite the unsustainability, the inbuilt and inherited ethical problems not to mention any inherited immoralities.
Currently, the Aboriginal elephant in the room to do with QVMAG policy and programming is seemingly being ignored. Leadership in policy determination would seem to demand that:
- The past – Tasmania's & the Tamar/Esk region's – be interrogated and probed rather than celebrated;
- The future is explored and considered; and
- Change is embraced in the context of sustainability and 21st C imperatives.
The rider on approving these policies should be that they be replaced within 12 months with 21st C relevant policies determined outside the aegis of management albeit taking into account managerial/operational concerns and advice.
No comments:
Post a Comment