QVMAG GOVERNANCE: The Institution and its Accountability

Dear Mayor, Aldermen & QVMAG Trustees,

The Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery (QVMAG) is an important Tasmanian cultural institution that holds collections of national and international significance. As the QVMAG's Trustees, in recent years I've pointed out to you, and on many occasions, unavoidably you are the custodians of this important cultural, historic and scientific material and functionally you are the institution's governing body responsible for its policy determination and strategic planning.

As you will also be aware I have responded to the institution's self-assessment presented in its 2016/17 Annual Report that can be accessed here – https://qvmag2017.blogspot.com.au/. I've received no response except an acknowledgement of its receipt and a personal response from the QVMAG's Director who told me he disagreed with my analysis and assessment. Since the report was his that is quite unremarkable and entirely to be expected. 

Clearly, the annual report has not been subjected to independent expert scrutiny thus its authority is questionable – and at best its veracity is subverted. This places the QVMAG's ratepayer constituency, state taxpayers, donors, sponsors, researchers, et al in the invidious position of  apparently having nowhere to go in order get the accountability they deserve. How can, and why should, the QVMAG's constituency trust this brand of accountability?

In the absence of evidence to the contrary I hold to my assessment of the QVMAG's 2016/17 Annual Report – https://qvmag2017.blogspot.com.au/p/report-notes.html. Moreover, with  emerging information currently the indications are that the  QVMAG is clearly an institution that is eessentially:

• Self-directing in the absence of strategically effective governance;
• Self-regulating in the absence of transparent and accountable governance;
• Self-assessing in the absence of policy sets and performance indicators to measure performance against; 
• Self-serving given that the opportunity is being afforded and moreover it is the status quo position;
• Strategically rudderless in the absence of an authoritative governing body peopled by appropriate  experts; and
• An exemplar of managerialism masquerading as governance.

Together, all this renders the QVMAG functionally unaccountable to its constituency many of whom are conscripted annually to collectively contribute something in the order $130 per rateable property.  Then there are Tasmania's taxpayers who provide $1.3million plus annually. And after that there are the donors and sponsors who entrust the institution with their various contributions – over time $240million invested in its collections plus other assets.

Arguably, the QVMAG's integrity is seriously compromised as a consequence of all of this.

Without doubt this circumstance can clearly be put down to failures in respect to the trust invested in you as the institution's default Trustees – that is on your parts singularly and collectively. Along with the denial of, and the abdication of, the trust invested in you as Aldermen/Trustees. Arguably, the QVMAG is under performing in a 21st Century context and especially so given all that has been invested in the institution over 125 years plus. 

To the extent that it is true, there is no fault attributable to the institution's management – none whatsoever. Arguably, this comes about as a consequence of the lack of functional accountability, the lack of credible governance and the opacity of whatever passes for governance that is currently in play.  Plus, there is the overarching and misguided managerialism, plus the lack of transparency, that has brought all this about and that has been tolerated by you collectively over time. 

Clearly, the standards you are walking past as 'trustees' are the standards you stand ready to accept!

Your performance in regard to the QVMAG's governance is arguably an exemplar of obfuscation and opacity. The sequence of events I'm setting out here is to say the least troubling.

Firstly, let us start with the scheduled Strategic Planning and Policy Committee (SP&P) meeting, March 16 2015. As I understand it from my research members of the QVMAG Governance Advisory Board (QVMAG MGAB) attended to present their advice in regard to what they saw as a way forward for QVMAG governance. Nonetheless there is no record of that meeting taking place nor the formal advice the MGAB had to offer you. This is more than curious.

Secondly, it appears as if this meeting –  post event apparently – transformed into a 'workshop' that required no minuting nor any formal reporting process. Consequently, ostensibly in the best Machiavellian tradition, this meeting apparently never actually happened despite evidence to the contrary.

Thirdly, and somewhat curiously, the General Manager set out upon an adventure of his own and in contradiction of the QVMAG MGAB's considered advice – arguably commissioned expert advice. That adventure, presumably sanctionable under SECTION 62 of the Local Govt. Act, led to the appointment of a consultant. It appears as if this 'action of convenience' was founded on the strength of an untested assertion that "it is questionable whether investigating QVMAG separately will take the Council and the community to its desired destination in terms of valuing and utilising its culture" (FILE# – SF3256/SF3816). The question hanging in the air here is whose perception of a "desired destination"? After that, whose perceptions and understandings of 'cultural values' informs all this – and  in a transparent and accountable manner?

Fourthly, somewhat curiously the GM apparently appointed a consultant and there is no record of there being a brief for this consultancy to measure its outcomes against. Albeit that it is speculated that it will, or has, cost Launceston's ratepayers somewhere between $60,000 and a $100,000, how, as Trustees, did you permit this given the costs and the lack of transparency involved – not to mention the strategic implications?

Fifthly, it appears as if all this has led to some opaque proposition to establish a boosted bureaucratic entity to operationally manage Launceston's cultural activity in isolation from expert strategic and policy direction. When did you consider, or have you considered, consulting the broad spectrum of the 'Community of Ownership & Interest' (COI) in a meaningful way?

See – https://qvmag2017.blogspot.com.au/p/musingplaces-and-communities-of.html

What expert advice, rigorous independent expert advice, has informed, or is informing, this strategic policy initiative relative to SECTION 65 of the Local Govt Act?

The scenario presented here suggests that you as QVMAG Trustees have abandoned the institution to it own devices, and in isolation from its COI, and in an attempt to insulate the QVMAG operation from criticism and critique. Perhaps somewhat more worrying is the advice offered in an eMAIL exchange between myself and the General Manager in August 2017 [LINK] ... "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".

This 'advice', albeit mystifying, has all the hallmarks of self-service and it would be unlikely to stand up under any serious credibility test. Moreover, it is what it is, advice – and only advice. Given experience elsewhere it is clear that you as Aldermen/Trustees – the QVMAG's Governors! – had and have access to independent expert advice that more than likely would  set the scene for a more credible, more accountable and more transparent, set of outcomes. Indeed, the QVMAG's MGAB can, and apparently did attempt to, provide such expert advice – and after a considerable amount of research.

Is the scenario currently in play delivering in any way on the Tasmanian community's long term investment in the the QVMAG's collections valued at $240million?

Moreover, it is hard to imagine how your integrity as a 'governing body' has not been, and is not being, compromised in an ongoing way. The QVMAG as a credible and accountable cultural institution with national and international standing must lack the standing it might otherwise have. That is more than lamentable given all that is invested in the institution.

I look forward to your considered responses to the situation that lays before you in respect to the integrity of the QVMAG and its accountability.

Yours sincerely,

Ray Norman
Independent cultural researcher and Launceston ratepayer

Ray Norman

<zingHOUSEunlimited>
The lifestyle design enterprise and research network