Review of Governance Practices - Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery Establishment of Working Group

The following information is on the Launceston City Councils website but there is no opportunity there to leave a comment, critique, observation, whatever. It is posted here to allow that and for easy access. The information for intending working group applicants is as follows:

"Proudly owned and operated by the Launceston City Council, the Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery (QVMAG) is the largest regional museum in Australia and is the arts, cultural and creative heartbeat of Tasmania.

The Council is undertaking a review of the governance arrangements of the QVMAG. Following the review, the Council will establish an appropriate contemporary governance model which addresses QVMAG's obligations to the Council, State Government and community.

The Council wishes to form a working group of appropriately qualified people to research, evaluate and make recommendations to Council regarding the appropriate governance arrangements for the QVMAG.

The Working Group's considerations are anticipated to include, but not be limited to, the following:

1) Calling for public submissions on relevant matters;
2) Interviews with key stakeholders relating to the QVMAG, such as employees, and Friends and Foundation members;
3) An assessment of the current governance arrangements;
4) Discussion of alternative governance models, including the relationship with the City Council; and
5) A recommended governance model for QVMAG.

It is anticipated that the Working Group's recommendations will reflect both best practice in governance standard and the symbiotic relationship between the Launceston City Council and the QVMAG.

The newly formed governance arrangements, in conjunction with a new Director, will guide the vision and strategy of the QVMAG as it moves through an exciting multi-million dollar redevelopment at both its Inveresk and Royal Park sites. Further key aspects include ensuring that QVMAG's programs engage the community and are at the forefront of innovation and contemporary cultural practice while providing best value to Council and other stakeholders.

Objectives of the review
The Council has established the following objectives for the Working Group tasked to research, evaluate and make recommendations to Council upon the appropriate governance arrangements for the QVMAG.

Establish a governance framework at QVMAG which gives carriage to the Council's statutory responsibilities and community obligations, and which appropriately addresses the following key areas:

• Stewardship and security of collections
• Ethical and accountable management
• Development and delivery upon the QVMAG Strategic Plan
• Accountability reporting to stakeholders
• Contemporary practice in museum and art gallery processes and practices
• A method of practice that promotes engagement and consultative process
• The symbiotic relationship between the Launceston City Council and the QVMAG

Timelines for the review
It is anticipated that the Working Group will report to the Council with its recommendations by 1 March 2011. The Launceston City Council will through the General Manager provide such resources as necessary to facilitate the activities of the Working Group.

Call for nominations
Nominations for the QVMAG Governance Working Group are invited from appropriately qualified people. Applications should include details of experience and qualifications and further information which promotes the credentials of the applicant.

Applications marked QVMAG Governance Working Group should be received by close of business on Friday 8 October 2010 and addressed to:

General Manager
Launceston City Council
P.O Box 396
Launceston, Tasmania 7250

Further enquiries should be directed to the General Manager's Office on 03 6323 3104 or by email to kym.corfield@launceston.tas.gov.au

Robert Dobrzynski
General Manager"

The General Manager has also provided the following contextual information to help put the work of the "Working Group" in context:

"Whilst QVMAG is essentially a Department of the Launceston City Council and predominantly recurrent and capital funded from the City's annual budget (with funding support from the State Government), in practice, the specialised nature of activities at QVMAG have led to a gradual but continuing separation of activities of the City as a local government and QVMAG.

Whilst QVMAG has a Friends Group, this does not provide a governance function. So the current arrangement sees the Launceston City Council and below it the QVMAG. The intercession is the position of Director QVMAG.

The objective is to establish a governance structure that connects QVMAG and the City Council from a technical policy, due diligence in process and practice and performance accountability perspective, effected operationally through the Director.

The QVMAG governance model, whilst contemporary, should also bear relevance to the fact that QVMAG is not a creature of the State Government, and therefore the legislative and trustee models that various State and Territory Governments have established may not be appropriate as a direct translation to QVMAG. However, the many examples of good Museum and Art Gallery governance and policy practice that exist should provide a fertile ground of consideration to the working group, even if in an adapted form."

CLICK HERE TO CONFIRM THIS INFORMATION ON COUNCIL'S SITE

MUSEUM PROBLEMS

Too many specimens, not enough people at museum
Nicky Phillips September 2, 2010

"MORE than a decade after thousands of specimens were stolen from the Australian Museum the NSW Auditor-General has criticised the current management of its collection.

A performance review found much of the museum's 18 million-piece collection, valued at more than $750 million, was not catalogued and many items could not be located by anyone but the curator or museum staff. ''[This] weakens the museum's ability to provide information on its collection. It weakens its ability to exercise effective control over the objects in its care,'' the Auditor-General, Peter Achterstraat, said. ... While the Auditor-General's report, released yesterday, did not assess the museum's security, it found it did not conduct regular inventories of its collection to ensure items still existed ... Thousands of zoological specimens were stolen from the museum by a former employee ... An Independent Commission Against Corruption investigation into the thefts, which included animal skulls, birds and a stuffed lion, found the museum's inventory was incomplete and its security and collection management practices inadequate."

Well reading this in Launceston poses a few questions. The QVMAG's last Director was at the Australian Museum and presumably knew all about this kind of problem. The QVMAG's collection are apparently worth something like $250 Million, so what security is in place there. And in what state is the QVMAG's record keeping? We should not be expecting answers to questions like that anytime soon. The elephant in the room is probably what this SMH story might be telling us. Would an Auditor-General's report on the QVMAG tell us anything that we do not want to know?

POSITION VACANT ADVERTISEMENT: Museum Director QVMAG Launceston

Letters to the Editor – Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery

The two letters in today’s Examiner are an interesting breaking of the silence in regard to the issues surrounding the QVMAG, the ratepayers’ payout of the Director’s contract plus Council’s management and governance of the museum.

The Aldermen’s resolve, having read and considered the Sage Report, to keep its sensitive and its potentially harmful contents confidential is to be congratulated.

It’s a decision that should be supported by any reasonable thinking person.

The real question that needs to be asked is where to from here given that the QVMAG is one of Tasmania’s cultural treasures and that there is a great deal at stake.

Apart from making a well-meaning but relatively ambiguous commitment to set up a “working group” to ” research, evaluate and make recommendations regarding [QVMAG] governance” nothing more has been heard.

Like commitments have been made in the past and have sunk without trace.

Largely this is why the QVMAG is costing Launceston’s ratepayers so much in their rates, not to mention the lost and missed opportunities.

Ray Norman
Trevallyn

PUBLIC MEETING: Call For QVMAG Enquiry

It is well beyond time that there was some kind of enquiry into the goings on at the QVMAG. First up, well not quite, the Director is dismissed in a cloud of innuendo and the only news appearing in the Examiner is essentially the same story run in a dozen different ways.

Secondly, the General Manager seems to have lost perspective in regard to due process and is now rushing to appoint a new director without consultation with the Aldermen it seems. It is about time that there was something reported to the ratepayers who pay his salary. The title 'Public Servant' once meant something. Now it seems that it is the public who serve these people and it is costing us a motza in rates. A $100 plus for the museum in our rates.

If people actually turn up to this meeting there may be a chance to find something out. But it is a bit extreme to have to go to this kind of lengths to get information.

CLICK HERE TO GO TO MUSEUM MUGGING WEBSITE
•
CLICK HERE TO GO TO MUSEUM MUGGING TWITTER SITE

The Museum Saga

With the museum saga moving on a notch, and the "search for a museum boss" now in progress, those who actually wind up paying her/his salary have been left right out of the process yet again. What we see here is yet another public consultation process by edict and media release – in essence a repeat performance with past failures remaining in the script.

The Aldermen at Launceston City Council seem to be sticking like glues to the assertion that the museum is owned and operated by Council. It is certainly operated by the Council but its "ownership" is open to debate . The collections are not by necessity owned by the Council. It is more realistic to understand them as being held in trust on behalf of Tasmanians and a range of others with something invested in these collections – intellectual property plus cultural property and capital in particular.

Given all that is invested in the QVMAG, the aspirations and understandings – self-serving understandings(?) – of unrepresentative bureaucrats need to be considered with great caution. Even if it hasn't been mentioned yet, world's best practice is a laudable aspiration but the question that needs to be asked is who is making what judgements and on whose behalf.

Since New Zealand/Aotearoa has been sited in a previous post, in the establishment of Te Papa’s, New Zealand's National Museum, some new benchmarks in museum practice have been established – and especially so in regard to museum governance. The bicultural cum cultural diversity paradigm that New Zealand's cultural institutions are now operated within provide exemplars worth emulating and well worth taking advice from ... click here to visit Te Papa online

Two Museum Stories With A Launceston Tinge

Many people will have missed these stories but they are rather serendipitous for Launceston – and especially for Launceston now. What cannot fail to catch your attention is that the first story – the one to do the stolen painting – points to the institution’s endemic, and serial, governance and management failures and weaknesses. So we imagined that us Lonnyites were alone with the smell of bureaucratic recalcitrance in the air near the museum .... click here to read the story

One might imagine that someone in Cairo might have been saying the day before the robbery happened that it couldn’t. Then again, perhaps it has elsewhere in the museum and nobody has noticed yet. Or perhaps, maybe it has and nobody is talking about it. Its anybody’s guess really.

Its an odds on bet that there is quite a bit blame shifting going on at the Khalil Museum as we speak. One wonders what they do to delinquent bureaucrats in Egypt? Does Sharia law kick in for misdemeanors like this? Clearly not thus far it would seem.

But it doesn’t stop there, across the ditch in NZ, and Auckland specifically, there is another story that smells much more like home and that is the kind of salutary read we are unlikely to get if we buy The Examiner. It certainly is rich pickings out there online today!

Both stories tell Launcestonians that they are not alone. Reading between the lines – even though we shouldn't do that – it seems the museum world reeks as much with intellectual myopia and bureaucratic entropy as can be found in public administration almost anywhere.

In shareholder world those found wanting tend to move on quite quickly. Its always a bit of worry when you find a functionary that's been round the block a couple of times.

Petar Hill

PUBLIC MEETING: Penquite Road Tuesday August 17 2010

Click on the map to access The Penquite Rd. Traffic Management Works Background Paper

The residents impacted upon by Penquite Road met last night and held Launceston City Council to account. It is a sad state of affairs when this kind of action is required, that is calling upon Aldermen and officers to account for their actions – and sometimes their inaction.

If there had been adequate community consultation this meeting would never have happened. If a narrow band of opinion on Council hadn't dogmatically pushed an idea as some kind of one size fits all solution to everything, well this meeting would not have been needed.

For far too long Launcestonians have had second rate decision making imposed upon them. The 'insertion' of bikeways into a narrow carriageway is just a recent example. Ratepayers and residents are used to being fobbed off by Council's officers but it seems that they are finally getting tired of it.

So too it seems are some Aldermen getting both wary and weary of the contention they are left with. Ald. Dean noticeably arrived late and left early, perhaps in order to avoid engagement with his constituents presumably. Also, a couple of other Aldermen left early and presumably because it was unlikely that an bouquets were going to be handed out.

In a nutshell the meeting was raucous and rowdy but it eventually called for a total review of the bikeway and other carriageway works to ensure that they meet community expectations and safety standards.

In addition, the Easter n bypass question was raised yet again since it was first raised in the 1960s.

The real lesson to be learned from this meeting is that when community consultation is taken seriously Council gets to find out what the community's concerns really are. Perhaps, there is an increasing appetite for community consultation. If Council embraces community consultation with more enthusiasm there is not only money to be saved but other benefits to be won as well.

In regard to Penquite Road, TRA is expecting a response from Mr Harry Galea, Director of Infrastructure Services, in the next few days. So watch this space.

MEDIA RELEASE: Disgruntled Cataract Gorge stakeholders dissatisfied with Hydro Tasmania's performance

Letters to the Editor –Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery

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.

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.

Ray Norman
Trevallyn

A MUSEUM IN CRISIS _ A Museum At Home With Itself

This notice slipped quietly into a Launceston INBOX a day or so ago and not so surprisingly there is much to learn from it. Yes Auckland is somewhat larger than any city in Tasmania, nonetheless Auckland's museum looks like it might be able to teach us a thing or two about a thing or two.

The first thing that is very noticeable about the language in this notice is that it is setting out to engage Aucklanders in the process of renewing "their museum". Launcestonians have not been exposed to the same welcoming experience of late. Generally they have been kept pretty much in the dark and treated like mushrooms even if they provide a large slice of the QVMAG's funding.

This week Launcestonians have opened their morning papers to discover that THEIR MUSEUM has lost its director and apparently there have been other losses as well. With so many losses it is hard to work out if this is down to fate or carelessness. Whatever, the buck stops with the Aldermen!

The Auckland Museum is an interesting institution that engages with its Communities of Ownership and Interest. One wonders if any time soon that will be an experience Launcestonians can boast about given all of this week's events.

Graffiti fines backlash

Graffiti fines backlash BRIAN WARD | August 11, 2010 12.01am

GLENORCHY residents have slammed a plan to sting landowners who don't remove graffiti from their properties.

Glenorchy City Council was reeling yesterday after a public backlash over proposed graffiti bylaws.

The Mercury website was bombarded with comments from readers who were disgusted by the proposed fines, many who couldn't understand the need for them.

Glenorchy aldermen were also overwhelmed with the response from the community yesterday, which viewed the plan as extreme.

Under the proposed bylaws, property owners and occupants could be fined up to $220 if they fail to remove graffiti on their property from public view..... read more here

So you do not live in Glenorchy and you think this doesn't impact upon you? Well do we have some news for you. A while back the Gestapo at Launceston City Council were proposing to fine people if the didn't take their rubbish bins in on time. They were also proposing to fine people who failed to put their rubbish and recycling bins 1 meter apart. In every bureaucracy there is some little guy who wants to be a bigger one.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
Thomas Jefferson

State Government Review of Valuation and Rating Models

TRA has been in touch with Matthew Sullivan at the Department of Premier and Cabinet to enquire about the opportunities available to have some input into this process being initiated by Bryan Green MP – Minister for Local Government. Click here for more information

Once upon a time we might have been able to say that making an input into a process like this is something our Councils should do on our behalf. Maybe they should be involved but we can bet on one thing, their input is more than likely something that will happen without ratepayer input/consultation. So if we are concerned, and we should be, we need to be proactive.

Rather than roll over and play dumb, ratepayers should be working together to come up with ways in which they think that the valuations we pay rates on are more realistic – and thus the rating model used to calculate rates more sustainable.

TRA recommends that anyone, or any group, with an interest in this subject should now:
• Register their interest in making a contribution to the review
• Form some discussion groups to test their ideas on other ratepayers
• Talk to their Councillors/Aldermen and declare their interest to them and ensure that they play an active part in this review process.

TRA has registered its interest but we may be overlooked when the time comes but this will be less likely if others do so as well. This looks like a chance to get a more equitable rating system , so lets make the most of it.

To see the Governments terms of reference for the review and independent analysis can be found by CLICKING HERE

Further information: Matthew Sullivan 0407 816 462

Matthew Sullivan eMAIL: matthew.sullivan@dpac.tas.gov.au

Trouble at the QVMAG

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

Are You suffering From Election Irrelevance Syndrome?

If you are up for some edifying commentaries this site is worth reading. Apparently it is written from Penny Wong's office or somewhere like that ...click here to read more

How to change the world: RECOMMENDED READING

Dorothy from the Midlands writes to tell us about this "change technique." Well it is worth a look and I would go so far as to say that every Alderman and Councillor in Tasmania should read this 12 page pamphlet. However, as Dorothy says "ratepayers trying to get through to their [elected representative] will find this useful" too!

Yes, Dorothy it may well be useful but some of our representatives believe they have been elected to make decisions and NOT to listen to their constituency on every issue that comes up for them. It is hard to have a productive conversation with them but it is worth trying. But we should not tar all our representatives with the same brush as there are quite a few who take their 'representation' seriously.

Then there are the unelected managers. Some of them believe that they have all the answers so listening to ratepayers and residents is often seen as a waste of their time. Nonetheless this pamphlet could be useful even in having a productive conversation with such an officer.

The website where you download this paper from is an interesting one and Les Robinson the author has some interesting things to say about economic rationalism. In fact he gives us "Eight tools to fight economic rationalism" with! Take a look, its worth the effort.

A Launceston Alderman Stands Up To Be Counted.

If you live in South Launceston most likely you will have received one of these leaflets in your letterbox. It is really good that our elected representatives get out and about doing letter drops and letting us know what they are doing for us. Its the kind of thing you are unlikely to read about in The Examiner anytime soon.Parking is one of Ald. Soward's hot topics and it is good to see that he has done a reality check and that he has discovered that in order to bring about change you need to get going and do some lobbying.

He also made some promises about rates that it seems he'll need to do a bit more work on in order to close the credibility gap. If you say one thing and vote another way there is a gap to be filled. Why did Ald. Soward vote for the rate increase despite the level of services Launceston City Council has to deliver shrinking somewhat now that the Sate Govt. has taken water management out of the equation?

However, South Launcestonians have been doing it tough in the parking stakes for a long time. So too have hospital patients, staff and relatives! CARe PARK AUSTRALIA has a grip on the situation that is going to be hard to overcome but all strength to Ald. Soward's elbow. Nonetheless he'll need the support of a few more Aldermen before he'll be able to make much headway.

We also need to remember that the hospital is cash strapped. No wonder the management has turned to CARe. It is going to be hard to wean the hospital's administration from that funding drip!

Darwin rates set to rise but Launcestonians think they are lucky

Darwin homeowners are heading for a council rate rise of 5.5 % – just like Launceston's rate rise.

The draft Darwin City Council budget for 2010- 11 sets the minimum rate for a single dwelling at $844, up from $800 this year – much lower than Launceston's.

The minimum rate for multiple dwellings or high density residential will rise to $888.

The rates for property owners in the Central Business District will remain the same.

Darwin's Lord Mayor says he thinks the city council's rates system is unfair ... click here to read more

About Launceston
Lots About Darwin

MEDSIA RELEASE: Expert Advice Sought for Valuation and Rating Review

The Minister for Local Government, Bryan Green, said today independent expert advice was being sought as part of a review of Tasmania’s valuation and local government rating systems.
Mr Green said Access Economics had been engaged to undertake a comprehensive analysis and report to the joint State and Local Government review.


“The review will consider rating and valuation models currently used in Tasmania and interstate,” Mr Green said.

“All options are on the table for consideration.

“The Government is committed to working with local government to address the concerns of ratepayers and councils about rating fluctuations and the need for greater clarity and flexibility of rating models.”

Mr Green said the Access Economics’ report would form an important part of the overall review.

He said he expected the report to be completed in October ahead of further consultation with councils and the community.

Any changes arising from the review are unlikely to be implemented until the 2012-13 rating year. “Valuation and local government rating are highly complex areas."

“The Government’s aim is to deliver a valuation and rating model in consultation with the community and local government that will serve Tasmania into the future."

In 2007 Access Economics undertook a review of the financial sustainability of local government in Tasmania for the Local Government Association of Tasmania and has recently completed a review of rating for Darwin City Council.

The terms of reference for the review and independent analysis can be found by CLICKING HERE

Further information: Matthew Sullivan 0407 816 462

Californian Ratepayers in Revolt

Are there lessons here for Tasmania?

"California Official's $800,000 Salary in City of 38,000 Triggers Protests

By Christopher Palmeri - Jul 20, 2010

Hundreds of residents of one of the poorest municipalities in Los Angeles County shouted in protest last night as tensions rose over a report that the city’s manager earns an annual salary of almost $800,000" ... Click the Orange Button to go to the source