A STRATEGIC PLAN: The Mayor said in Saturday’s Examiner that he is going to be careful with the Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery. How can Launceston’s ratepayers believe that in the light of recent events?
To lose a Museum Director in a cloud of serious accusations and contentious counterclaims is very careless. The Mayor must have known what was going on if these accusations were being progressed and processed for as long as it seems they have been. If he did not know, then why not?
If he was to claim that this kind of thing is handled by management, well that does not stack up. Either Council’s management is keeping him in the dark, or he has asked to be, or is happy enough to be oblivious to this kind of thing.
The Mayor receives a very good salary to represent the people of Launceston who have put their trust in him. On this occasion it seems that he has failed them and seriously. The dismissal of the museum’s director is going to cost the people of Launceston not only a lot of money but there will also be a loss of service. It will also impact upon Launceston’s rates at least as much as the Mayoral salary does. Perhaps he should think about that and get back to ratepayers!
Saying that he supported the General Manager’s “proposal to have a strategic plan” begs some questions:
• Isn’t there a current strategic plan already?
• If there is not then why not?
• If not, why with his business background, and ratepayer’s interests at heart, had he not ensured that there was one?
• If there isn’t a strategic plan for the museum then how can the council justify levying ratepayers for the museum’s operation?
• Likewise, if there isn’t a strategic plan, one that is written down, that reflects the museum’s current operation then how could he sanction the expenditure of millions of dollars currently being spent at the Royal Park building and a range of other significant expenditures within the institution?
The questions posed here might be quite wrong and there probably is a strategic plan in the Mayor’s bottom draw somewhere. If there is, will he please show it to us because we would like to do a reality check on how Council is spending our money. And no, in due course will not be good enough. If there is or isn’t a plan Launceston’s ratepayers deserve to know either way.
Francis Lee
Waverly
GOVERNANCE & MANAGEMENT FAILURES: The Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery is one of Launceston’s, indeed Tasmania’s, most precious cultural assets. It holds within its collections significant exemplars of Tasmania’s heritage and cultural property – Aboriginal and European.
Waverly
GOVERNANCE & MANAGEMENT FAILURES: The Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery is one of Launceston’s, indeed Tasmania’s, most precious cultural assets. It holds within its collections significant exemplars of Tasmania’s heritage and cultural property – Aboriginal and European.
The lamentable situation the museum currently finds itself in is entirely due to weaknesses and failures in Launceston City Council’s governance and management of the QVMAG.
Sadly it seems that Mr. Filmer-Sankey has been as much a victim of the failures as he may have been a part of them.
On average, every ratepayer has been investing well over $100 per annum in the QVMAG for quite a while. The State government has also been contributing to recurrent expenditure and most recently capital expenditure as well.
In regard to the museum, LCC has not been functionally accountable to the museum’s Community of Ownership and Interest for some time. So I agree with the Collenettes in their letter [in the Examiner], the museum is indeed under considerable threat and there is a great deal at risk.
The time is upon us when all the weaknesses and failures need to be addressed by Council.
Sadly it seems that Mr. Filmer-Sankey has been as much a victim of the failures as he may have been a part of them.
On average, every ratepayer has been investing well over $100 per annum in the QVMAG for quite a while. The State government has also been contributing to recurrent expenditure and most recently capital expenditure as well.
In regard to the museum, LCC has not been functionally accountable to the museum’s Community of Ownership and Interest for some time. So I agree with the Collenettes in their letter [in the Examiner], the museum is indeed under considerable threat and there is a great deal at risk.
The time is upon us when all the weaknesses and failures need to be addressed by Council.
Ray Norman
Trevallyn
Trevallyn
No comments:
Post a Comment