NETWORKED QVMAG MEMBERSHIPS

RHIZOMIC INTERFACING

INTRODUCTION

The QVMAG exhibition “Growth, Change, Influence” has raised something of a minor furore amongst a component of the artists exhibited. There is nothing new in such furores and indeed cultural events without them can be likened to “soup without salt”.

If an exhibition looking at 125 years of history invested in an ‘art school’ doesn’t expose contention and controversy, or even mockery at some level, arguably it would be lacking in rigour. Smoothed over histories can only devalue the richness of stories such histories inevitably have invested in them. In short the enterprise of “smoothing over” will, as likely as not, lead to missed opportunities and/or a ‘blanding down’ at the very least.

However, all that to one side, there are standards that one might expect will be upheld in a public institution of the QVMAG’s nature, standing and implied capacity. It is especially so given the multiple millions of ‘public dollars’ invested in the institution over its own, now rather long, history.

What the current furore exposes is the level of weaknesses and failures relative to the institution’s Community of Ownership and Interest, its strategic project implementation, it’s position in the community’s imagination and in the end much of this comes down to marketing. 

Given recent events and the recent review and City of Launceston adoption of the QVMAG Review Committee's Report a review of the institution's corporate structure and the marketing paradigm it exists within would seem to be timely.

NETWORKED MEMBERSHIPS AND MARKETING

PURPOSE 

In the light of the outcome of the QVMAG Review Committee's Report and Council's recent determinations, establish a network of networked memberships to facilitate;

   • Interfaced institution wide marketing strategies;
   • Networked and rigorous scholarship, research and publication          initiatives; and
     • Inclusive and participatory program development.

OBJECTIVES

1. To grow the institution’s Community of Ownership & Interest (COI)

2. To facilitate more effective communication with the institution’s COI and beyond;

3. To facilitate more effective marketing initiatives enabling higher levels of engagement with the institution’s COI and wider audiences;

4. To enable a more dynamic research and publications program that both engages with and services the institution’s COI  and wider audiences;

5. To better resource the institution via a rhizomically networked ancillary, adjunct and associate membership;

6. To be better placed to initiate and undertake an innovative and more dynamic programs that better fit the 21st circumstance and the increasing need to generate income to sustain the institution and its research.

RATIONALE

1. The institutions Community of Ownership & Interest (COI) needs to grow in order to better reflect, and deliver upon, the 21st C aspirations and ambitions of the institution’s investors – taxpayers, ratepayers, sponsors, donors, collectors, scholars, students, et al.

2. Effective communication is an imperative in a 21st C context. Given the institution’s disparate audiences, and its diverse COI, communication networks can be expected to need to be increasingly diverse and more widely dispersed. Moreover, audiences are reachable by an increasingly diverse, non-hierarchical and rhizomically interfaced, and ever evolving, set of communications networks.

3. Effective marketing initiatives are needed to enable the institution to:

• Achieve higher levels of COI and audience engagement with the institution;
• Increase the level of audience participation and appreciation;
• Increase community and COI awareness of, and engagement with, the institution’s collections, program and projects;
• Increase community and COI awareness of, and engagement  in, the institution’s research programs, its research priorities and its publications program;
• Increase the institution’s income generating opportunities in order to sustain and grow the institution. 

4. A dynamic research program and its supporting publications –exhibitions, digital presentations, books, journals, etc. – lends credibility to the institution and at the same time generates ongoing opportunities for the institution’s COI and audiences and its researchers in order to sustain and grow the institution.

5. A rhizomically networked ancillary, adjunct and associate membership will exponentially expand the institution’s research capacity. Consequentially its COI along with the benefits flowing from this  will grow in order to sustain and grow the institution

6. Given rapidly changing circumstances, 21st circumstances, within which cultural institutions currently operate there is an undeniable imperative to be innovative. Furthermore, there is a need to have the capacity to deliver on the increased potential for more dynamic programming and an ever expanding audience reach in order to sustain the institution.

STRATEGIES

1.  Review and reform the institution’s membership and corporate structure. Accordingly, restructure the institution towards it being one where inclusive memberships are proactively facilitated and enabled in order to better reflect, and deliver upon, the 21st C cultural imperatives.

2. In recognition of the diversity, and the wide distribution, of the institution’s Community of Ownership and Interest (COI) initiate a program of development relevant to initiating a rhizomically interfacing communications network that aims to engage with every QVMAG ’member’ in some way no matter where they are physically located or are ranked within the operation.

3. Proactively review and revise the institution’s marketing strategies in ways that enable the institution, and its COI, to:

• Proactively engage and rhizomically network with the QVMAG’s various audiences in ways that enable them to participate in project development and the outcomes of these developments;
• Initiate a program of Citizen Curatorship that leads to sponsored publication outcomes, physically and digitally, in QVMAG spaces, networks and related institutions - intrastate, nationally and internationally;
• Via Citizen Curators, Curators-in-Residence, Researchers-in-residence, Writers-in-residence and related sponsorships open the institution’s and its ‘member’s’ collections – in-house & beyond – to a program of ‘publications’ – physical & digital;
• Proactively engage the institution’s COI in a diverse and interfacing research program;
•  Engage the institution’s COI in the development of income generating opportunities for the mutual benefit of members and the institution. 

4. Proactively diversify the institution’s research program and the range of its supporting publications –exhibitions, digital presentations, books, journals, etc. – towards the end of expanding the institution’s outreach in ways that generate ongoing opportunities and income benefits for the institution’s COI and audiences and its researchers alike;

5. Proactively initiate a membership recruitment program that includes:

• Appointing a research ‘college’ charged with oversighting sanctioned members’ projects, peer review processes and ethics issues relevant to them;
• The establishment of focused groups and networks – cultural production, digital technology, community history, natural science, etc. – that rhizomically interface;
• Appointing ancillary project support personnel, adjunct curators and associate researchers;

with a view to exponentially expanding the institution’s research capacity and its publication outputs.

6. Proactively initiate income generating opportunities for the institution and its membership  – staff, ancillary members, adjunct members, associate members, collectors, etc. Furthermore, establish an action group(s?) to provide advice plus marketing and technical support for income generating projects related to the project.

CONCLUSIONS

Council's, recent adoption of seven proposals presented to it by the QVMAG Review Committee sets the scene for change albeit that as yet here is no implementation plan is in place – See CoL Agenda August 24 item 11.3

There is a danger here that no action will or can be taken on the propositions presented here. Nonetheless, if management acknowledges the need for change there are limited options open to it given that what is being proffered here is a policy change and is thus the imperative of governance – CoL Aldermen/QVMAGTrustees.

However, management might well take the initiate of enlisting the support of a group of Aldermen/Trustees in the formation of action group to:

• Advocate the changes management endorses;
• Promote the need for change in the community; and
• Shepherd those changes the community and the Aldermen/Trustees endorse through the Council processes required to implement them.

QVMAG REVEIW REPORT

CITY of LAUNCESTON REPORT: QVMAG REVIEW CLICK HERE

QVMAG REVIEW 

The report makes seven recommendations following a relatively brief period of review. In essence the report acknowledges a need for change. Nonetheless, within it, and its recommendations, there is a great deal invested in the status quo. 

Moreover, despite an implied and longstanding acknowledgement for a need to change, the telegraphed ‘change’ runs the risk of further embedding the institution in the City of Launceston’s operational paradigm – and potentially counterproductively. 

For instance, any alternative to the ‘Cost Centre Paradigm’ the institution currently operates within doesn’t seem to have been given much attention. It seems to offer little in the way of preparation for the kinds of operational and entrepreneurial change that the 'musingplaces' it is projected that it should network with are currently embracing and facing, and are bound to continue to face. 

The ‘change investment’ seems to be in the kinds of operational growth that has led to the QVMAG’s current precarious sustainability. That is projected growth with the need to fund it via increased imposts on the current funding sources.

However, with that said the report does open the door that might well enable the kind of change that would allow the QVMAG to become a 21st C institution able to take its place within a national, potentially international, network of musingplaces. 

The news that Hobart's MONA is now acknowledged as the 10th most significant international ‘museum and tourism destinations’, and that ahead of MoMA New York and Tate Modern London must give encouragement to the proposition that a reimagined QVMAG can actually deliver on both its promise and potential. 

As a reinforcement to that proposition it is worth noting that a Sydney based ‘arts entrepreneur’ is about to outspend David Walsh’s spend on MONA and invest $32 million operation in a Sydney. Indeed, it is one step closer to being built with the City of Sydney set to approve the $32 million gallery and performance space in Chippendale. Read-more here:  

Taken in their totality the QVMAG recommendations do not seem to offer a trigger for implementation in the near or immediate future. To overcome this there would seem to be two options towards progressing the kinds of change flagged in the report, and that the QVMAG needs to embrace, in order to deliver on its promise and potential. 

Alternative 1:  Immediately appoint a multi member Commission or Commissioner with the authority to: 

1. Review the QVMAG’s Strategic Plan and determine an interim Strategic Plan and a ‘Business Plan’ for the immediate term;
2. Review and determine the QVMAG's operational budget and funding structure;
3. Review and determine QVMAG policy sets in the context contemporaneous imperatives in the field; 
4. Copt a network expert ‘citizen’ advisors towards achieving the above and other tasks determined by Council; 
5. Review and determine the QVMAG’s operational model and administrative structure relative to funding sources and opportunities; 
6. Establish network links with the governing bodies of other musingplace and research institutions in the Tamar/Esk region,Tasmania, nationally and where appropriate internationally; 
7. Facilitate the instigation of a QVMAG Reform Conference that draws upon the QVMAG's Community of Ownership and Interest in the widest context;
8. Generally establish the foundations for a reinvigorated institution that is able to change and meet the social, cultural and economic changes facing kindred institutions in future decades; and
9. That is provided with administrative and secretarial support from within the QVMAG. 

Alternative 2: Council, on an interim basis, immediately meet at least monthly as QVMAG Trustees in the way it does when meets as a “Planning Authority” to: 

1. Review the QVMAG’s Strategic Plan and determine an interim Strategic Plan and a ‘Business Plan’ for the immediate term;
2. Review and determine the QVMAG's operational budget and funding structure; 
3. Copt a network 'expert citizen’ advisors towards achieving the above and other tasks determined by Council operating as QVMAG Trustees; 
4. Review and determine the QVMAG’s operational model relative to funding opportunities; and 
5. Proactively fulfil the required policy determination function until a new QVMAG governance paradigm is settled upon in consultation with funding agencies in concert with the institution’s Community of Ownership and Interest.

QVMAG Accountability and Community Engagement

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

CLICK HERE: http://www.launceston.tas.gov.au/lcc/index.php?c=69

QVMAG POLICY DETERMINATION – Monday June 22nd's LCC Council Meeting

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.

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

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 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.

Given the embedded status quoism and fundamental inadequacies in the draft policies, as matter of housekeeping, they may well need to be approved in order to move on. But move on we must!

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.

TURNING AN UNSUSTAINABLE COST CENTRE AROUND TOWARDS SUSTAINABILITY : MAY 11 2015

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED STEPS TOWARDS TRANSLATING THE QVMAG FROM A COST CENTRE INTO A COMMUNITY SOCIAL ENTERPRISE 

Against the background discussed below there are a number steps that seem logical to apply as an alternative to continuing to fund the QVMAG as a Cost Centre as it has been for decades. In addition, these steps are offered as an alternative to the counterproductive and the often failed strictures of economic rationalism typically applied to operations when their sustainability is questioned. The proposed steps in summary are as follows.  

• In accord with the musingplace’s publicly articulated and revised purpose in a 21st C context, divine an operating cost centre budget in accord with recent history. 

• Ensure that the funding required can indeed be secured in a socially cum politically sustainable manner. 

• Set the target for year one of a longer term budget review process with the expectation that 10% of that year one budget must be realised through entrepreneurial activity, excluding grants for recurrent expenditure. Underwrite this mechanism via a GAL (Guarantee Against Loss) to provide a level of security for the operation in it transition from cost centre budgeting towards more entrepreneurial budget models. 

• Allow for any income achieved to be held in a ‘suspension cum carry-over account’ towards the next years recurrent budget and/or capital expenditure depending upon its source. 

• Review the year one outcome and set the year two recurrent budget accordingly. As a part of this review determine which parts of the recurrent budget are in fact project and program funding and which parts are to do with the recurrent maintenance of the operation. 

• Reset the institution’s Strategic Plan and report the review findings, including year one outcomes, directly to all the institution’s funding agencies, sponsors and donors. 

• Set the target for year two of the process with the expectation that 20% of that budget must be realised through entrepreneurial activity and underwrite it via a GAL and as for Step 4 allow for the carry over of appropriate generated income be carried forward.

• Review the year two outcomes towards setting the appropriate level for the operation’s sustainable recurrent budget and continuing level of program delivery. 

In accord with outcomes achieved, and the overall review process, reset the operation’s Strategic Planning process and the timeframes within which enterprise planning takes place. Likewise, as a part of this review, determine which parts of income coming in the form of grants can be sustained in the short, medium and long term and what aspects of the operation they can be directly related to grant income for research and program delivery. AND importantly, measure the outcomes achieved in previous two years and assess their effectiveness relative to targeted cultural development and cultural tourism objectives.

BACKGROUNDING

The QVMAG, like most public museums, is currently imagined as a Cost Centre. The argument goes “museums cannot make a profit … full stop.” It may or may not be so but it depends where you look and what you are looking for. In the ’business world’ a cost centre is that part of an organisation/operation that: 

• Does not produce a direct profit; and 
• Adds to the cost of running a company/operation – the Council in the QVMAG’s case. 

In the business world, examples would include research and development departments, the marketing office, the help desks, the customer service unit and the contact centre.

But Councils, Governments generally, are not businesses. They are monopolies set up to service a constituency. In essence, for their constituents, they are cost centres for them. By design nothing is done, or is intended to be done, for a fiscal profit. 

Constituents invest in their Councils by paying rates & fees, on the expectation that they will receive a set of services with tangible and intangible outcomes – often intangible dividends rather than a fiscal profit.

Although Cost Centres are not always demonstrably profitable, they are there to add value indirectly and/or fulfil some other corporate mandate. While research and development departments may deliver profitable outcomes, while effective public relations and customer service departments may build customer loyalty, in themselves these things are not profits but they do add value to an operation. 

Typically cost centres have a negative impact on the bottom line – at least superficially – they are normally first in line for rationalisation and cutbacks. Likewise, operational decisions are typically driven by cost considerations.

Investments in ‘Cost Centres’ – new technology and staff etc. – are typically difficult to justify in a profit driven organisation because their indirect profitability is difficult to translate into the bottom-line. 

Business’ metrics are employed to quantify the benefits of a Cost Centre and relate costs and benefits to those of the organisation as a whole. 

However, Councils are not businesses. Rather, they are service providers delivering, typically, services that in turn provide both tangible and intangible dividends. More to the point, their purpose is to ensure the amenity of place – and they are thus engaged in the ‘profession’ of placemaking in a not-for-profit context. 

Unproductive, lazy or ineffectual Councils are directly accountable to their constituencies but the functional ‘service providers’ are not – the public servants, officers, et al. They are cushioned from accountability and are often able to insulate themselves against uncomfortable scrutiny. 

Given that the assessment of the relative ‘quality and quantity’ of the services delivered and the amenity/value achieved, in effect, can only be done subjectively. 

In democratic governance models those assessments can only be done, effectively, at elections albeit other options may be available. Consequently, it is contingent upon the directly accountable ‘governors’ to hold their service providers truly accountable. 

The cost centre mantra, and its assumption that it cannot/shouldn’t generate a profit, and by extension says that a cost centre cannot/shouldn’t generate income either, is one dimensional and fundamentally flawed – an in all likelihood, self-serving in the laziness it affords. 

SURVIVAL MISTAKEN FOR SUCCESS 

Entrenched cost centres operate in accord with the MICAWBERprinciple, they can only survive and typically by design they can neither flourish nor succeed. Charles Dickens’ character’s, Mr. Micawber’s, dictum that goes "annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen pounds nineteen and six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery" comical as it is, it defines the one dimensionality of cost centres. 

MICAWBERprinciple accountancy counts beans but does not allow for them to be planted because that would present risks deemed to be unacceptable. The principle invokes the metaphor where an accountant counts the beans that are stored out of the reach of rats and insects but nonetheless they loose their viability because of the environment provided to ‘protect’ them. 

It follows that value is typically lost under the aegis of the MICAWBERprinciple or at the very least is diminished. It’s a metaphor for ‘unintelligent stewardship’ that fits the cost centre centrality of all too many musingplace imaginings all too well. Like Mr. Micawber, they teeter on the edge of fiscal disaster waiting for “something to turn up” – typically a philanthropic handout, or a benevolent government windfall or via some other ‘White Knight’. 

Public musingplaces’ MICAWBERprinciple accountancy is careless of its income sources and never more so than when ‘governors’ can be persuaded by their officers/servants to conscript the funding needed, and without recourse or real constraint, to build their bureaucratic empires and 'grow their pies'. By extension, the paradigm continually supplies bureaucratic overlords with underlings fully cognisant of the principles of Parkinson’s Law – "work expands so as to fill the time [and use the resources] available for its completion[and/or doing]."  

MUSINGPLACE SUCCESS 

Musingplaces can be successful rather than simply survive and never more so than when they add value to living in a community and the places where people live. How is that value measured? 

Euphemistically, one way to measure success is to count the proverbial “bums on seats” and invoke the metrics and then calculate the cost per bum. 

If it is the case that the more you spend, or the more you do, the more the numbers remain the same, then it is clear that value is not being delivered. Here a cost centre can only survive if its ‘funding agencies’ decide to look away for whatever reason. 

However, how can it realistically be expected that they will continue to look away? What is being put at risk by relying upon them doing so? If value, on the evidence, is not being delivered, how long can the agencies afford to look away and claim accountability is delivered upon? 

If musingplaces, as cost centres, are not delivering appropriate dividends, and the dividends, or the lack of them, are assessed externally and independently as adequate, then the case for their continued unsustainability grows. 

Accordingly, then it would seem that there are just two propositions in prospect: 

1. Close the operation down and reinvest in some alternative ‘value delivering’ project; or 
2. Reconfigure the operation in ways that value delivery is more likely to be delivered. 

WHAT MIGHT AN ALTERNATIVE LOOK LIKE? 

If the operation were imagined as a ‘value centre’ there would need to be a paradigm shift. The resulting metrics, as likely as not, would be required to demonstrate that the alternative was delivering more for less. By extension, this implies that new knowledge, and new skill sets, will need to be acquired – and change embraced with some enthusiasm. 

This is unlikely to be welcomed by those comfortably entrenched in a cost centre paradigm informed by the MICAWBERprinciple. Value won, rather than ‘profit earned’, may turn out to be more difficult to assess via metrics. However, the levels of income generated under an ENTERPRISEarchetype may well provide the justifying metrics to some extent. 

THE SEARCH FOR SUSTAINABILITY 

If in the search for a sustainable business/operational model for a museum you look at musingplaces in an international context there is surprising evidence that they can be sustainable. Internationally their sustainability is very often already reflected in their aspirations and programmes.  It might be imagined as being rare but it seems not. If you consider financial sustainability, then a topical issue in austere times is the competition for limited resources. 

Likewise, trying to find innovative ways of working better and at a reduced cost is nearly always the focus. One solution on offer for musingplaces is to "become a social enterprise". However, many museums have already learned that they need to be and are already operating a social cum community enterprise business model – and many are doing it really well. How and why? 

WHAT IS SOCIAL ENTERPRISE? 

An old definition of social enterprise was based on the notion that a social enterprise was a socially beneficial organisation that derived in excess of 70% of its income from trading. If this is applied to the charitable/voluntary sector it excludes them and denies them access to the large funding pools and support available to 'social enterprises' if it is rigidly applied. 

However, “social enterprise” needs an accurate definition that works in practice and that is not forever changing. It was always a political minefield and the debate lingers on even if it is around a much looser definition. The social enterprise idea is not new. 

Basically social enterprises are operations that engage in commercial activities in ways in which they are able to deliver social, environmental, educational or cultural outcomes. The profits, the income generated, is used to increase the level of value the operation can deliver rather than be retained for the personal gain of those who are employed in the enterprise. 

HOW CAN A MUSEUM BE A SOCIAL ENTERPRISE? 

The evidence is that musingplaces have demonstrated an impressive collection of income streams and cost saving measures that most 'not-for-profit organisations' can only dream of. 

Museums deliver on: 

• Government contracts and research grants; 
• They generate income from retail outlets and cafes; 
• They deliver educational programmes; 
• They derive income from image loans and the associated research; 
• They offer beneficial memberships; 
• They hire out facilities; plus 
• They facilitate film and documentary shoots; and 
• Often, they have become expert and enterprising fundraisers for a diversity of projects.

Museums have typically become experts in running programs on lean budgets. They typically work with volunteers effectively and collaboratively. Moreover, typically they can be relied upon to understand the environmental impacts of their activities and to have done pioneering work on energy saving etc.

When museums have a strategic and strong sense of why they exist – their purpose for being –  they can deliver on the above. Increasingly, museums can adapt, typically out of necessity, to create activities and income streams that match their raison detre and aims as well as complying with the core values of their publicly stated purpose for being. 

 The ‘social capital’ that is generated via their work and the social benefit they deliver epitomises financial, social and environmental sustainability. 

Many musingplaces embrace sustainability in its wider context by working with local supply chains and developing proactive environmental practices that parallel their strong ethical culture. They are typically ideal driven by, and are exemplars for other local enterprises – sometimes in partnership with them. 

Altogether this adds value to the operation and the communities that support them. 

All this is complex product development and social enterprise brand management at its best. 

It is clear that museum business/enterprise models are characterised by: 

• The type of innovation they are engaged with; 
• Their diversity and strength that in turn ensures financial sustainability; and 
• The effective social responsibility they epitomise.  

THE ENTERPRISE MODEL AND SUSTAINABILITY

People no longer trust banks, they have lost faith in hollow commercial brands and they are tiring of shallow poor quality public services. Increasingly, there is a gap that is opening up between people's time and money and what they reasonably and rightly expect in return. 

When musingplaces operate as social cum community enterprises ‘consumer frustration’ tends to diminish. Musingplaces are where we expect people to find quality and a depth of experience. They should be places where people are encouraged, respected and challenged. 

The musingplace experience is to do with well being, tranquillity and enrichment. Potentially they are enterprises that offer value for money and/or a return on investment. Public affection towards museums can be an extraordinary business phenomenon and one that increasingly few businesses in other sectors enjoy with their customers. 

The musingplace business cum enterprise model is increasingly based upon sustainability. Similarly, it is a model that is often a classic exemplar of the success early adoption of the community cum social enterprise model can deliver. Interestingly, as cultural institutions, museums are among the earliest pioneers of the enterprise model as the alternative to the cost centre based on the MICAWBERprinciple as they reimagined themselves as something other than an 'arm of government' and as being accountable to governments' constituencies. 

Indeed, it is feasible that among musingplace products and services they might well be offering 'social enterprise business advice' within their range of products and services. 

LOOKING AHEAD  

If musingplaces learn the language of community based social enterprise they can: 

• Enter the debate surrounding sustainability from the high ground; 
• Access the support offered to social enterprises; and 
• Address business and planning questions more effectively. 

Musingplace will get more value from advisors, consultants and Trustees when they can clearly articulate their purpose, their enterprise cum business model and the operation’s relationship with sustainability and the social enterprise model.

Musingplace managements need not be alarmed at unfamiliar terms. Very often they are the names for activities or models that musingplaces are already implementing and embracing – and increasingly out of necessity. 

OPEN LETTER: QVMAG TRUSTEESHIP & GOVERNANCE

Dear Trustees of the Queen Victoria Museum & Art Gallery,

<sub>I am writing to do two things.  Firstly, to congratulate you on your election or re-election to Launceston City Council  (LCC) and secondly, to draw your attention to the fact that as a consequence of your being elected to Council, you are also by default functionally a member of the QVMAG’s ‘Board of Trustees’. This is rarely overtly acknowledged, indeed there is a history at LCC where Aldermen’s QVMAG Trustee role has been downplayed – trivialised even – and the Local Govt. Act 1993 is unhelpfully ambiguous. 

Nevertheless, as  LCC Aldermen you are a member of the only body that is directly accountable to the rate and tax payers who provide almost all the funding the QVMAG relies upon. Furthermore, the QVMAG was endowed to the "Mayor, Aldermen & Citizens of Launceston" in 1895 – See online here</sub>

I imagine that the newly elected Aldermen among you may not have understood that you would be, functionally, a QVMAG Trustee when you decided to stand for election as an LCC Alderman. Arguably, in any practical sense based on the circumstantial evidence, neither did your predecessors consider this prospect – and it has been so for decades. Interestingly, QVMAG agenda items on LCC agendas have been notoriously missing for almost two decades and only appearing in crisis circumstances.

_{Put simply, as an Alderman/Trustee you, in concert with your fellow Aldermen/Trustees,} are unambiguously accountable for determining what the QVMAG does, why it does it and when it does it. Trustees need to do this in order that its management can effectively determine who does these things and how they go about it. Civic Administration 101!

Likewise, as a Trustee you, in concert with other Aldermen/Trustees, determine the institution's policies (all of them!) and by extension, management's clear role is to put your determinations into action and deliver on the policies you as Trustees put in place. 

Most importantly, as Trustees your most onerous role is to secure the funding the QVMAG needs to survive, operate its programs, conduct its research, build upon its collections and provide/maintain its infrastructure. There is no escaping this function as in the end it falls to you, in your Trustee role, to ensure that the institution is financially viable and sustainable. 

_{The separation of powers between governance and management} in civic administration is necessary in order for you, as Aldermen/Trustees, to:

• Be truly accountable to your constituency, funding agencies, donors and sponsors; and 
• Make management functionally accountable to you as QVMAG Trustees; and
• Oversight the delivery of the expected and predetermined outcomes set down by you in your role as the QVMAG's Board of Trustees; in order that you can
• Ensure that QVMAG's services and programs can be delivered to your constituency as planned.

<sub>All this falls to you because you are a member of the only body that currently has a governance function – policy determination powers – relative to the QVMAG. 

The first role of such a body is the appointment of the institution’s CEO or Director and consequently monitoring her/his performance. For whatever reason, in this case the practicality of this role has been devolved (informally?) to the General Manager in respect to the QVMAG  – and there have been flow-on consequences over time. 

There is an urgent need to proactively re-examine the situation the QVMAG finds itself in and the time is now! Moreover, given the QVMAG's multi-million dollar call on the LCC's budget, there is an urgent need for Aldermen, as the QVMAG's Trustees, to closely examine their roles as the QVMAG's governing body and the consequences of that – intended and unintended.

If you find your circumstances in regard to your 'QVMAG trusteeship role' either unclear, unacceptable or too onerous you may wish to have your situation clarified by the relevant State Govt. Ministers.  They would be:</sub>

The Minister for Local Govt. 

_{Peter Gutwein: peter – gutwein@dpac.tas.gov.au}  

The Minister for The Arts 

Dr Vanessa Goodwin MLC – vanessa.goodwin@parliament.tas.gov.au

_{I have prepared a report, attached, to put what I am putting to you here in perspective and to provide some context. I and the QVMAG's Community of Ownership & Interest look forward to your responses – collectively and individually.}

_{Yours sincerely,}
Ray Norman

Ray Norman JTC (Syd Tech.), CA (National Art School Syd.), MA (Research) Monash Melb.

Independent Researcher, Designermaker & Cultural Geographer

Director & Project Coordinator (Tas) nudgebah institute

Foundation Member (Resigned) QVMAG Museum Governance Advisory Board

“A body of men holding themselves accountable to nobody ought not to be trusted by anybody.” 
Thomas Paine