Launceston's ratepayers pay, and have been paying for a long time, for the museum. If there are management failures at the museum then it is most likely down to the Aldermen looking the other way. If as Alderman Norton says, the director was handed a poisoned chalice, who poisoned it?If there were management problems as far back as it seems, who is that down to? It seems that if the museum's director finds himself in an untenable position there is quite a bit to be examined. Will the Mayor and Council have the appetite to initiate an investigation that is likely to find them wanting?
Watch this space. We'll be watching this one to ensure that ratepayers are well represented and are not handed a horrendous bill for a failure. The Aldermen and managers are underwritten by the ratepayers who in the end always carry the can. In part at least this is why Launceston's ratepayers are paying more rates than they need to.
Remember the additional $500,000(?) budget blowout at the Aquatic Centre, on top of the budgeted $400,000 operating loss. And, of course who could forget the $30,000 wastefully spent on the Centre's opening without reference to the Aldermen. That is the kind of benchmark ratepayers would prefer wasn't used. In these hard times ratepayers are increasingly less able to pay.
Subsequent Press of Interest – Please click on a heading
- 'Duty of care' the issue at museum BY ALISON ANDREWS Examiner: 11 Aug, 2010 08:34 AM
- Sweetnam to take over responsibility 11 Aug, 2010 12:00 AM
- THE BACKGROUND Examiner 11 Aug 10 | PATRICK Filmer-Sankey, 54, became director of the Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery on December 4, 2006. His appointment came just five months after the Launceston City Council appointed Victorian local government administrator Frank Dixon
- Museum drama must be resolved EDITORIAL Examiner 11 Aug 10 | THE Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery is a nationally recognised and respected institution with a distinguished history dating back to 1891. Launceston has two museum sites - at Royal Park and at Inveresk - and both showcase our...
- Museum boss to pursue his own complaint Examiner 11 Aug 10 | LAUNCESTON museum chief Patrick Filmer-Sankey will revise and resubmit code of conduct complaints against three city aldermen. Mr Filmer-Sankey yesterday said that he had taken advice from Mayor Albert van Zetten that his original complaints had ...
- Museum chief expects to be sacked – BY ALISON ANDREWS CHIEF REPORTER Examiner: 10 Aug, 2010 08:24 AM
10 comments:
For years, Launceston Ratepayers have believed what their Aldermen have told them, that QVMAG is owned by LCC.
In fact it is owned by the State Government and created under the samwe legislation as the Tasmanian Museum & Art Gallery in Hobart.
The difference is that LCC has made an agreement with the State Government to manage the museum, but there is a very significant shortfall in the funding provided by the State Government to undertake this task, so the shortfall is funded from Launceston Rates.
The QVMAG holds a vast collection worth many millions of dollars, and it is only because of an ineffective governance and management system that leads to a financial loss of such a proportion. Again, this is a Regional facility but the majority of funding is just by Launceston ratepayers.
Ratepayers must find a way to take control of this problem.
Executive,
Tasmanian Ratepayers Association Inc.
Potentually the QVMAG is one of Launceston’s most valuable drawcards. But it has been mismanaged by the Council. Apparently the cost to ratepayers is significant and apparently this year every rateable property is paying something like $110!! It is hard to check the figure on the Council budget but I’m told that’s what it costs. I say its impossible to find out but I’m not an accountant
The rot seems to have started when Alderman Dean was mayor and when he took an economic rationalist approach and the staff redundancies that resulted from that. I think he also wanted to sell off Royal Park for a song to save money. If he didn’t there were Aldermen who did.
Thank goodness that idea was scotched.
You would think that the cost of the Museum to the ratepayers would have fallen due to the economic rationalist position Alderman Dean advocates. But I think the Aldermen will find that they have increased at a much greater rate than the CPI. That is economic rationalism for you.
Once upon a time the State Government’s contribution was higher proportionally than now. The costs seem to have been running riot since the so called economic rationalism kicked in. Since then the museum has been delivering less but its costing ratepayers more.
I do not mean to say the museum is not worth having. However I do think that there needs to be real and cost effective management instead of the economic rationalism that in the end usually costs more fixing up failures, breakdowns etc. etc.
More than ever Launceston needs the QVMAG to be attracting people to the city but its exhibitions haven’t been doing that for quite a while. The website doesn’t work and I went there because I was told I could see the figures I wanted in the annual reports. The reports are not available.
Now the Aldermen and their management team look like loosing a key member to what is probably down to mismanagement. It is always the ratepayers in Launceston that pay for their mistakes.
But the Aldermen's mistakes do not stop at the QVMAG!
No, no, no, the opening of the Aquatic Centre cost $60,000, perhaps $60,000 PLUS even. I seem to recall that the General Manager at the time said that the amount was signed off by the Aldermen. Apparently the Aldermen cannot rember doing that. The result is the same. Ratepayers pay for an overpriced celebration.
One Alderman at the time, his name has slipped my memory, said something like the cost was "equal to everyone in Launceston buying a box of matched, therefore so what”.
Well if the ratepayers are always picking up the bill, of course it is so what. That is if you are a manager or an Alderman.
WHAT THE LOCAL GOVT. ACT ACTUALLY SAYS ABOUT THE QVMAG
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1993 - SECT 332
Division 2 - Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery 332. Endowment
(1) By way of permanent endowment for the Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery, there is to be paid out of money provided by Parliament to the Launceston City Council in each year an amount to be used by the Launceston City Council towards –
(a) the salaries of persons employed by the Launceston City Council in relation to the Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery; and
(b) the maintenance, management and other charges in respect of the Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery; and
(c) obtaining specimens of natural history, goods, chattels, paintings and works of art for the Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery.
(2) The Launceston City Council may supplement that fund in each year as it thinks fit.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1993 - SECT 333
333. Management
(1) The Launceston City Council has the management and control of the Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery and its contents and may sell and exchange the contents and generally act in such manner as appears best calculated to advance the objects of the institution.
(2) The Launceston City Council, once in every year, is to report the proceedings and progress of the institution to the Minister responsible for the administration of the Tasmanian Museum Act 1950, and a copy of every report is to be laid before Parliament within 14 sitting days after it is received.
The LG Act refers to 'the objects of the institution'.
What are they?
I just looked on the QVMAG’s website to try for an answer to the "what are the objects” question. There was nothing there that is recognisable as anything that would fill that bill.
Perhaps the Alderman can tell us what quality assurance mechanisms they use as Aldermen in the absence of "objects."
If that doesn’t work then perhaps someone in management can tell us what they use as quality assurance measures.
If they cannot it is fairly safe to assume there are none to be had. That is none that anyone knows about.
We should keep on asking until we get an answer!
Managerialism is a dangerous social trend, a very dangerous one. Typically it assumes the high ground without having the remotest idea what it is in fact it is dealing with. Its first principle is characterised by the deeply held belief that a company’s purpose its to make a profit. Sorry but its purpose it do what it is in business to do, mine gold, produce wine, fly people to the places they wish to fly to. If it does those things well usually these operations can make a profit and they stay in business.
If Mr Filmer-Sanke was given directions to cut the museum’s staff by 30% the aldermen whoever made that requirement of him should now be under scrutiny. Such a bald expectation would have been tantamount to their interfering in operational matters if it came from the Aldermen.
If it came from somewhere in the management structure it demonstrated a lack of knowledge about what museum do and how they are best managed.
This whole affair at the QVMAG has a funny smell about it but maybe funny is not the best word.
Anyway, managerialism is never funny and there is growing evidence that internationally it has been the downfall of many good operations of all kinds that didn’t understand why they exist.
Tasmanians reading the Examiner today have every reason to worry about their museum and what is happening down at Launceston’s City Hall.
Where's the leadership?
A competent leader (the Mayor) would have defined the role and goals of the museum long ago - where is that information?
A competent leader would also have assured that budget details were published and understood. Where is that information? It's hard to believe that the Mayor supports the kind of 'back of envelope' financial reporting that appears to be the Council's stock in trade.
How can anyone manage a multi million dollar organisation without having clear budgets and goals against which to assess performance?
The Mayor surely has a role to play in all of this. Just leaving it to the professional managers is entirely inadequate.
Surely setting goals and reporting standards is what the Mayor is being paid to do, or at least lead the Council into doing?
The Mayor has been very silent on this QVMAG issue. If there is a bouquet to be collected he’ll be there with bells on, adorned in heritage gold chain, ready, willing and waiting to receive the accolades.
If there is a brickbat to be ducked you’ll find him missing in action and the General Manager will be sent out to deflect the flack.
Anonymous is asking where is the leadership? Me thinks she/he isn’t alone on this one. So Mr. Mayor, where are you?
Rodney & Anon should stop asking about Albert van Zero. He has been missing in action as a leader since he took the job.
Standing around in a fancy suit telling us what the bureaucracy has decided is a role for the GM, not the Mayor who has a different role (see Local Government Act).
Post a Comment