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@bigpond.com> 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been rescinded and thus stands as Council policy albeit not acted upon.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 –
http://letters7250.blogspot.com.au/2017/05/launcestons-cultural-strategy.html
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 QVMAG 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: 03-6334 2176
EMAIL 1:
raynorman7250@bigpond.com
40 Delamere Crescent Trevallyn TAS. 7250
WEBsite:
http://www.raynorman7250.blogspot.com
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
No comments:
Post a Comment