Dear Mayor & Aldermen,
Currently, looking at the methodology in play relative to the review of the governance of the QVMAG it is relevant to note that:
- Deliberations have apparently been going on in isolation from, and somewhat insulated from, the broad spectrum of the QVMAG’s aldermanic ‘trustees’ and the QVMAG’s community of ownership and interest;
- While the foundation recommendations for the eventual determination of a proposed future QVMAG governance model have been established this information is not intended to share this information with aldermen/trustees until just before July 20’s SP&P meeting it seems;
- As I understand it, it is intended that the issue be resolved at that time and formally adopted, or not, at the following Council meeting without any further investigation or community input.
The missing element here is any kind of credible or significant consultation with the QVMAG’s Community of Ownership and Interest – that is, rate payers, tax payers, researchers, educators, scholars, stakeholders, tourism operators, cultural producers, sponsors, donors, funding agencies, et al.
Somewhat concerningly, this strategic model has been made clear since the outset of the current review process. Nonetheless, this seems to be seriously at odds with the LCC’s Organisational Values – http://www.launceston.tas.gov.au/lcc/index.php?c=69.
Given all this, it is appears that the intention of this current review process all along has been to avoid community engagement and to opt for a process that allows for and privileges: self appraisal; self determination; self credentialing; and internal research focused on self serving outcomes. Sadly, the concept of “conflict of interest” seem to only have discretionary relevance along with the need for there to be a clear distinction between governance and management.
As a cost centre, and as the recipient of, and as an institution totally dependent upon community and public funding, the QVMAG’s credibility is compromised by its avoidance of rigorous independent open assessment, its lack community engagement and its disinclination to be open to independent critical review.
The QVMAG’s status as a cost centre does not appear to be under any serious scrutiny at all. Indeed, so far as I can tell, the QVMAG has never been exposed to the kind of close scrutiny that the TMAG has and that has been reported on by the Auditor General here – http://www.audit.tas.gov.au/media/TMAG-summary-report.pdf . I submit that if it had, an auditor might well make similar findings in regard to the QVMAG to those found for the TMAG.
By extension, the current QVMAG review process seems to be based on the premise that the institution’s funders and users have nothing of substance to offer. That is, nothing in the way of guidance, experience or expertise that has any relevance to the QVMAG’s 21st C purpose for being, its governance and/or the relevance of its operation in a contemporary context. This seems extraordinary if in fact that is the case.
Against this background it is worth noting, and reiterating, that the QVMAG’s metrics, broadly speaking, are:
- The cost per person to visit the institution is in the order of $50 plus;
- Attendances over the past three years have plateaued at 120,000 plus;
- The conscripted investment, or undisclosed ratepayer levy, is in the order of $140 plus per rateable property – in many cases representing almost 10% of a property’s rate bill;
- The institution imports – rather than generates – the greater part of its program from other institutions; and
- A total expenditure budget in excess of $6 million with approximately $4 million coming from Launceston ratepayers.
Importantly, it is often claimed that these metrics point to the unsustainability of the operation. Indeed, investigations have been launched on that basis.
Somewhat curiously the current governance review process seems to be directed towards maintaining the status quo albeit that it is clear that the operation’s sustainability is questionable and its performance open to criticism.
It has also been said that I am alone in my concerns for, and interest in, the QVMAG’s Governance and its 21st C relevance. I therefore put it to you that this can be tested. Indeed, I believe that there are many in the QVMAG’s community of ownership and interest who have both knowledge of, and expectations of, the QVMAG. Moreover, these people will come from diverse backgrounds, and locations. They will also have something of substance to offer in the way of guidance and more still. The 2002 QVMAG Future Search Conference clearly demonstrated this to be the case.
When it come to speed limits in some Launceston streets, presumably with Section 65 in mind, the GM says “the first priority will be to get the views of the community, because they are the same community that we want to enjoy Launceston as a place to live and work." Curiously, on the face of it, a different set of priorities seems to be in place relative to the QVMAG’s governance and accountability.
Yours sincerely,
Ray Norman
