LETTER TO LCC ALDERMEN AND GENERAL MANAGER: QVMAG COLLECTION SECURITY

Mayor, General Manager and Council,

I believe that it is reasonable to assume that the current QVMAG Collection Policy that the institution is operating with has not been presented to, nor has it been endorsed by Council – the  institution’s governing body and its policy determiner. 

I’m also given to understand this unendorsed ‘policy’ deliberately consolidates within it the institution’s deaccession policy – that is the policy relevant to the disposal and dispersal of redundant, damaged and unsafe items in the QVMAG's collections.

I am also led to believe that the draft policy is in fact the current and functional operational guidelines despite the fact that the policy has neither been presented to nor approved by council. 

If this is not the case, can you inform me what in fact is the status of the QVMAG’s collection Policy?

Furthermore, can you advise me of what the current operational guidelines are in fact and what their status may be?

The draft policy provided to me by the QVMAG's Director (click here to see a copy) sets out that:

• “If [‘deaccession’ is] approved by the Director and the object has a value greater than $1000 the proposal is referred to Council for their consideration.
• If [‘deaccession’ is] approved by the Director and the object has a value of less than or equal to $1000 the Curator /Collection Manager arranges for the disposal of the item.
• If Council approves of the deaccession of an item with a value more than $1000, the Curator/Collection Manager arranges for the disposal of the object. “

The first issue that posses a problem with the ‘presumed draft policy’ is the notion that the ‘value’ of a cultural object/artefact or a scientific specimen can be realistically defined in dollar terms.

If 'value' is to be defined by some other criteria, given the General Manager's obligations under SECTION 65 of the Local Govt. Act, what independent expert advice does the GM, or will he, rely upon in determining ‘the vvalue’ and thus the appropriateness of deaccession when advising council – the institution’s Trustees?

Given the QVMAG Director’s often stated position that, paraphrased, ‘the QVMAG’s collections need to be rationalised’, how does the GM anticipate that this process will/can take place under current operational arrangements? Indeed, does Council, as the QVMAG's Trustees, endorse this aspiration?

Moreover, can the GM advise, or has the GM advised, council of the need to deaccession any material from the QVMAG’s collections since Jan 2014 and up until the present?

If so, what material, in what timeframe, for what reasons and by what process?

Presuming that the only material that would be a candidate for formal deaccession is that material that has been formally accessioned into the QVMAG’s collections, has any cultural material, or material of scientific interest, held informally by the QVMAG, been ‘disposed of’ since January 2014? 

If so, what material, in what timeframe, for what reasons and by what process?

In regard to the cultural and scientific material that is held by the QVMAG:

• Has an audit of this material been undertaken?
• Has an evaluation been undertaken relative to its cultural, scientific value and its consequent  and appropriate dollar value?
• If so, who has undertaken the evaluation, in what context and when?
• Has a strategy been put in place relevant to this material’s retention or disposal?
• If so, what time frame is anticipated as being either appropriate or achievable in regard to deaccessioning or disposing of cultural and scientific material held by the QVMAG?

In the context of rationalising the QVMAG's overall operation towards achieving sustainability, or a greater level of sustainability, the questions posed above are of considerable interest to ratepayers and the QVMAG’s Community of Ownership and Interest. This is especially so in the context of the MOU signed with the university and the flagged consolidation of the QVMAG onto one site.

Furthermore, by extension, these questions ultimately run to the security of the QVMAG collections currently valued at something in excess of $240 million and funded by, and held in trust on behalf of ratepayers, taxpayers, donors and sponsors.

As an independent Launceston ratepayer, and as a cultural researcher, I look forward to Council's, and the GM's, responses to the questions posed above.

Regards,

Ray Norman

zingHOUSEunlimited

The lifestyle design enterprise and research network

 Trevallyn TAS. 7250

End Message