STATUS:
- Independent Unsolicited Research Report
METHODOLOGY:
- Action research supported by
- Personal communications; and
- Internet searches.
CONTEXT
Best practice demands that the roles that fall to LCC Aldermen as Queen Victoria Museum & Art Gallery Trustees are well recognised
nationally and internationally albeit that Aldermen have typically not been apprised of their function as Trustees upon their election to Council. These functions are those that determine and underpin the
institution’s purpose and reason for being and by extension
the following policy sets:
- Identity policies – securing the community of ownership & interest’s support for its purpose for being and appreciation for the institution’s mission, mandate and vision;
- Financial management policies – securing funds for the institution’s recurrent costs, the application for and the securing of grants for program delivery and research, the securing of funds for capital development and the securing of funds for the acquisition of collection material.
- Progress policies – setting the rate of progress the institution takes in fulfilling its purpose and mission, meeting its objectives and reaching the institution’s objectives.
- Operational policies – the guiding principles relevant to staffing, board self-governance, regulations, advice mechanisms, interpretation personnel qualifications and providing continuity for managing and implementing the institution’s affairs and long term direction;
- Strategic Planning – setting place short and long term strategic plans that establish the institution’s goals, guiding principles and the benchmarks against which performance will be measured and when;
- Promotion policies – setting in place the guiding principles for a promotional and marketing plan that identifies the institution’s Community of Ownership & Interest (COI) and target audiences;
- Research policies – setting in place the institution's guiding principles for research with expected outcomes, ethical standards and benchmarks clearly articulated;
- Exhibition & publication policies – the mandate, guiding principles and priorities for the institution’s program delivery and publications;
- Education & training policies – the mandate and guiding principles to engage in education and training programs plus related activities;
- Acquisition and accession policies – the guiding principles relevant to the collections’ objectives and rationale, collection strategies, collecting priorities;
- Deaccession policy – the guiding principles relevant to the identification and evaluation of material to be deaccessed and removed from the institution's collection, the deaccession processes and the methodologies to be used;
- Conservation policies – the guiding principles relevant to priorities, risk management, security, personnel qualifications relevant to conservation;
- Code of ethics – the adoption of a code of ethics based upon national and international codes for research that involves humans and the handling of human material, cultural heritage material plus animal and plant material.
NOTE: It is important to know that:
- Currently there are no policy documents for the QVMAG that are openly available to the public except for a natural history destructive sampling policy – and it is a publicly funded institution that needs to be transparent and accountable to its constituencies;
- None of the policy guidelines that the institution relies upon currently have been formally presented to, or have been formally discussed and endorsed by a meeting of LCC Aldermen/Trustees except in the most
cursory way. Thus, in this way policy determination has been functionally devolved to management. (Pers. Com – Past Aldermen)
- Notably, there is currently no Collections Acquisitions/Accession Policy or Deaccession Policy except for a draft for a combined policy that has been in re-draft for 15 months and well past their designated review date. Furthermore, the redraft, and the policies it replaces, reflects antiquated 20th understanding and sensibilities plus less than best practices from a security perspective. By extension,this situation has inherent risks.
All this is a serious situation and especially so in regard to the institution's accountability to its funding agencies, sponsors, donors and its constituency – its Community of Ownership & Interest (COI).
In
short, to be effective and accountable as Trustees Aldermen are essentially
required to be:
- Familiar with, and have a good working knowledge of,
the institution’s operation; and
- Fully cognisant of the institution’s purpose for
being, mission and constitution/charter.
These
things are important in order that Trustees can be truly ‘accountable’ to
the institution’s, funding agencies, donors, sponsors and the
institution’s COI that
includes stakeholders and others who have collectively entrusted the QVMAG, thus its Trustees, with their cultural property. This 'trust' has been informally passed on to management.
Debatably, the current circumstances at QMAG has allowed the distinction between governance and management to become blurred. In this way the current Aldermen's predecessors have permitted the institution to grow exponentially over time – and especially so in the 2000s. Clearly current Aldermen have inherited a serious problem with a relatively long history.
INSTITUTIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY
Unless the QVMAG is 'governed' and managed accountably the institution will be regulating itself, thus functionally unaccountable, and as a consequence,
that exposes the institution, and its COI, to various problems and risks.
In
the context of Aldermanic trusteeship, the institution’s COI needs
to be understood as an all-inclusive collective, or community of
people, individuals and groups, who in any way have multi-layered relationships
with the institution and its operation. Typically a COI will be a network of
networks.
Aldermen's QVMAG trustee function arises, as a consequence of their being elected a LCC Alderman. Being an Alderman/Trustee, demands a high level of accountability given the level of public funding currently being applied to the QVMAG as an institution and its programs over time. A brief stocktake of the institution as it currently stands is as follows:
- For the fiscal year 2013/14 the institution had
an operating budget in the order of $5.5 million including
grants – State Govt. & other;
- For the fiscal year 2013/14 the institution had
an operating deficit after depreciation in the
order of $3.7 million;
- Which translates to a subsidy per visitor in the order
of $50;
- Which in turn requires an undisclosed
flat-rate levy to be applied within LCC property rates of something in
the order of $140 per rateable property to service the QVMAG's operating deficit – a deliberate consequence of cost-centric operational model;
- The institution holds collections estimated to be
valued in the order of $230 million plus not taking into
account the priceless scientific specimens, cultural objects and documents that
would have a negligible realisable fiscal ‘value’ if
any at all;
- The institution importantly provides employment for
almost 50 full-time staff members and thus places in the
region people with skills and knowledge that otherwise might not be here;
- The institution occupies and utilises infrastructure
that has an estimated value something in excess of $50 million;
- For the fiscal year 2013/14 the institution attracted
almost 130,000 visitors; and
- The institution's website is increasing its utility – almost 1.3 million visits 2013/14 – but is yet to become a proactive income generator; a program delivery facility; and a 21st C rhizomic research network to lend credibility to the institution.
These
metrics and performance indicators provide a very pertinent overview of the current scope of the operation and
the cultural assets for which Aldermen have a trusteeship/governance role. More
importantly they are indicative of the onerousness of Aldermen's trusteeship role and what is entrusted to the institution.
If new Aldermen find all this somewhat daunting, surprising even, be assured that a long list of Aldermen before them have also found it so. Indeed, on the evidence, this Council's predecessors have virtually hand-balled their QVMAG governance function to management without formally delegating the appropriate authority to anyone or any accountable body.
Indeed, contrary to international professional ethical standards the QVMAG operated without a Constitution/Charter until one was put in place alongside the Museum Governance Advisory Board – June 2011.
Apart from being inappropriate and unprofessional, operating without a Charter or Strategic Plan was delinquent and furthermore it placed the institution in an untenable situation given the cultural 'wealth' invested in it by it COI – sponsors and donors in particular.
Take all together, arguably, this has allowed a bureaucratic empire to evolve over time and to grow without any significant constraints with many unwarranted risks attached – and with some being realised at the expense of rate and taxpayers.
All this has functionally blurred the distinction between governance and management at the QVMAG with less than desirable outcomes. Arguably, there is also an unacknowledged conflict of interest on the part of management embedded in all this. While it can be regarded as a 'convenience', it is not in accord with corporate best practice.
Debatably, in allowing this 'circumstance' to prevail and for so long, this Council's predecessors have permitted the institution to grow exponentially and beyond a sustainable level, over the past two decades. Clearly this new Council has inherited a serious problem and one with a relatively long history of looking the other way.
The QVMAG as an institution grew to its
present size, essentially without constraints, and has arrived at its current
level of acknowledged unsustainability via uncontrolled 'budget creep'
– and further compounded by the
cost-centric anti-entrepreneurial operational model that is currently in
place. Over a decade – late 1900s > late 2000s – the institution's operating budget increased by something in the order of 300%, well in excess of CPI increases as a consequence of 'Better Cities' funding and other in-house dynamics.
COMPARATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES
By way of contrast, The State Govt. ‘owns’ the Tasmanian Museum & Art Gallery in the way LCC advertises that it ‘owns’ the QVMAG. The TMAG is the ‘State of Tasmania’s cultural collection’, not 'Hobart's museum' as is often said in Launceston when there is a political money squabble in play.
Importantly, in 1950 the State Govt. put in place the Museums Act 1950 that formally established that institution’s governance as being distinct from the State government, and at arm’s length, but nonetheless accountable to Govt. – the Tasmanian people & the TMAG's COI – via the institution’s stand-alone Board of Trustees.
Starkly, nothing similar has been put in place for the QVMAG by LCC despite best practice indicating that it should. Arguably this renders LCC functionally unaccountable for the operation of the QVMAG. Moreover, despite being reminded of this over time no action has been taken to rectify the situation.
OPTIONS AND OPPORTUNITIES
Arguably, the time has come when the anomalies of the QVMAG demonstrably dysfunctional governance are addressed and the consequentially compromised management needs to be addressed.
Why? The issue of QVMAG governance needs to be regularised in order that the institution can be:
- Governed and managed accountably in accord with best practice; and
- Deliver outcomes and dividends (fiscal, social
& cultural) commensurate with its COI’s substantial investment in
the institution over time; and
- Furthermore, meet funding agencies, sponsors, donors
and the COI’s legitimate expectations of the institution in a 21st C
context.
Clearly,
as Aldermen for Tasmania’s largest Council Aldermen's QVMAG trusteeship might well be
considered too onerous given the scale and scope of the QVMAG as an institution relative to other responsibilities and obligations as Aldermen need to attend to.
Current Aldermen might now proactively consider:
- Meeting separately as QVMAG Trustees, as
does Council when it meets as a 'planning authority', and do so at
least bimonthly with co-opted exofficio advisors as required, members of the
QVMAG Museum Governance Advisory Board plus others with specialist domain
knowledge to determine QVMAG policy and conduct ongoing
reviews of the institution;
- Delegating the QVMAG trusteeship to a
stand-alone Board of Trustees accountable to the institution’s funding agencies
– Local Govt., State Govt., Federal Govt., Research bodies et al;
- Devolving ‘ownership’, governance and management to a
regional ‘TRUST’, ‘B-Corporation’ or ‘Community
Cultural Enterprise’ accountable to the region’s
Local Govts. and the State Govt. plus its COI – donors,
sponsors, et al.
Arguably, the
first option here could be initiated almost immediately. In the event that plans to 'restructure' the institution might be under consideration, this action might well be an interim measure. The advantage
in doing so would be that it would offer LCC time and opportunity to consider
other alternatives over time while restructuring the institution's funding and regularising its policy sets.
Likewise it would have symbolic significance in that
it would be a demonstration of LCC's 'willingness to change'.
Furthermore, in doing this it would place Alderman/Trustees, and Council
collectively, in a stronger position:
- To be engaged with the revision and review of the institution’s Strategic and enterprise/business plans;
- To be engaged with the revision and review the institution’s operational structure relevant to the 21st C;
- To be engaged with securing research and project funding and research partnerships; and
- To negotiate future recurrent funding options with the State Govt. et al.
All
this will be possible with the advantage of a broader advice base equipped with
appropriate domain knowledge. Typically, and for good reason, Boards of
Trustees are appointed not elected. The rationale for this being that
this allows for the appointment of members with appropriate domain knowledge,
skill sets and expertise.
Furthermore, members are:
- Typically, head-hunted, rather than nominated or elected; and
- Ideally, not appointed because they 'represent' an organisation or interest group;
because they have the skills, experience and domain knowledge the institution will depend upon to succeed.
ADVICE MECHANISMS
In order that LCC should have access to appropriate advice relative to ‘museum governance’ – plus museology, current cultural theory, developments in science, etc. – LCC put the QVMAG Museum Governance Advisory Board (MGAB) in place. At the same time a charter for the institution was put in place to regularise the institution.
Unfortunately the MGAB has been more decorative than functional. Apart from initiating the now largely redundant QVMAG Strategic Plan (Feb 2013), framed
as it was in a vacuum, the MGAB has offered almost nothing of ‘substance to governance’ since its inception. To be fair, neither has Council either asked or encouraged it to do so.
WHY? It is not because of its charter, which is adequate enough. Arguably and sadly, it is because of the way the board was implemented and the board’s almost total disengagement with the Trustees/Aldermen to satisfy a variety of bureaucratic imperatives and an apparent imperative to, so far as possible, maintain the status quo despite there being acknowledged unsustainability.
Any future constitution/charter for an institution that evolves out of the current QVMAG operation and that is relevant to the Tamar/Esk Region will need advice in various areas – law, financial management, ethics, science, cultural theory, social history, natural history, technology, education, training, social engagement, etc. Thus disbanding such an advisory mechanism as the MGAB would be counter productive and pure folly. It simply need to function as designed.
FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS
It is arguable that the QVMAG as an institution in a 21st C context should now be re-imagined, re-constituted and re-invigorated as an institution that needs to be:
- Rebranded in a context relevant to contemporaneous cultural sensibilities and scholarship in Tasmania and Australia;
- Proactive in its acknowledgement of Tasmania's Aboriginal histories in context with the Island's colonial histories;
- Proactive in its acknowledgement of, and engagement with, the institution's Communities of Ownership & Interest – definition;
- Embracing the concept of 'Honest Histories' and Tasmania's postcolonial cultural realities;
- A stand-alone, or arm's length, corporatised Community Cultural cum Social Enterprise that is an not-for-profit income generating enterprise;
- A research institution supporting a network of scholars and researchers employed, associated with and auspiced by the institution working in cooperation and collaboration with other like institutions nationally and internationally;
- A proactive 'publishing house' producing touring exhibitions, online exhibitions, books, catalogues, anthologies, printed material, etc.;
- Part of a network of Tamar/Esk and Tasmanian musingplaces relevant to Tasmanian sensibilities and cultural tourism – specifically Asia/China friendly;
- Embrace current understandings of cultural production and the histories attached to it relevant to the institution's 'placedness';
- Be offering a participatory program that engaged with a broad spectrum of the community – Tasmanians & tourists alike; and
- A cultural centre that services the Tamar/Esk Region and Tasmania.
In
order to achieve the kind of change indicated here LCC will need to extend its
advice base beyond the MGAB. The good news is that it can be anticipated that
there are the people there (within the region and State) with
appropriate domain knowledge and willing to be enlisted to the cause. Furthermore, Arts
Tasmania has a track record in regard to responding to such projects.
To
reiterate, it is now timely that the institution be reinvigorated in order to
capitalise upon the community's substantial investments in the institution over
time – fiscal & cultural.
