CLAYTONS POLICY MAKING AND DIMINISHING CREDIBILITY AT LAUNCESTON'S TOWN HALL

Dear Premier Gutwein and Minister for the Arts, Elise Archer,

Today there is what must be called ‘very strong speculation’ that the Queen Victoria Museum & Art Gallery (QVMAG) will shortly loose 11 positions plus(?) – something in the order of 25% of its staff – and the consequences of this can only be described as dire. There are even rumours on Social Media that the Launceston Council is “set to close” the QVMAG. 

Even more concerning perhaps is the report of the QVMAG’s ‘trustees’ – City of Launceston Councillors – in the Examiner today in regard to Council invoking an “interim public arts policy” that can be best interpreted as a smoke screen of some sort, quite likely devised to suppress news of the QVMAG’s increasing demise. In any event this ‘interim policy’ supposedly replaces an ‘old policy’ which in fact didn’t exist on the evidence to hand. 

Increasingly, Launceston Town Hall seems be the place where ‘Claytons Policies’ are manufactured whenever trouble is in prospect. There is a saying that goes that there is no purpose putting up your umbrella until it rains – well bingo out comes the ‘Claytons umbrella’! 

Interestingly, the secrecy here happens under the pall of COVID and OLYMPIC smoke from under which this information emerges, or is it ‘leaks out’? The apparent complicity of each and every councillor in allowing the degradation of this iconic institution to go on is something more than troubling. 

There is a wisdom that goes something like philistines providing the best definition of culture at any level. Anything that makes them rant with rage just has to be first class and anything they pretend to understand and value may well have no value at all. 

In most modern instances, interpretation amounts to the philistine refusal to leave ‘culture’ alone. Cultural concerns have the capacity to make us all very nervous given the messages cultural production often carries. By reducing ‘culture’ to its lowest common denominators and then interpreting that as ‘the standard’ this is worrying – it is in fact gold plated mediocrity. Interpretation/reinterpretation makes cultural production manageable, conformable … for philistines(?). 

This situation in Launceston must be one of Tasmania’s most outrageous examples of the failure of Local Governance to meet its obligations at both the governance level and the management level – and both simultaneously. An iconic institution with a history of 130 years is being virtually ground to dust and asset striped. To what purpose? 

Yes, Council need not, clearly should not, maintain anything like the status quo but virtually trashing the trust generations of people have invested in the institution, in the dark and apparently careless of the consequences, beggars belief. Likewise, with Tasmania’s State Government standing by, apparently haplessly, sends perplexing messages to the community that invests trust in ‘governance’. 

Given that the Tasmanian government has secured a ‘workable majority’ in the recent elections, the government now needs to address taxpayers’ and ratepayers’ ongoing concerns in Launceston – and here in regard to the iconic QVMAG. Among the range of issues related to transparency and accountability, these things need more urgent consideration: 

• Given community concern in regard to the City of Launceston Council’s inappropriate and increasingly apparent dysfunctional governance and management of the QVMAG with its 130 years of ‘community investment’ in its infrastructure, collections and recurrent operation costs, all of which are at risk, the Tasmanian State Government must now engage with the council in regard to transparency and accountability in regard to the QVMAG’s governance … and furthermore,

• Given this fundamental concern, the Tasmanian Government urgently needs to ensure that the City of Launceston’s Council – as the QVMAG’s default Trustees – is functionally fully accountable for the $230Mil plus invested in its collections by ratepayers, taxpayers, donors and sponsors over the life of the institution … and moreover, 

• Given the increasing level of concern, the Tasmanian Government now needs to take immediate steps to ensure that a ‘truly independent expert assessment’ of the institution’s collections that include ‘Tasmanian cultural treasures’ plus vulnerable and unique scientific specimens in the collections are indeed safe, secure and adequately protected … and additionally 

•  Likewise, given the increasing level of concern, the Tasmanian Government now needs to take immediate steps to ensure that vulnerable components of the QVMAG’s collections are ‘removed to the care of an alternative trusteeship’ – state or national – to secure their safety. 

I look forward with interest to your response and to whatever response you may receive from the City of Launceston’s Council in respect to this matter and the acceptability of Council’s level of transparency and accountability. 

Regards, 

Ray Norman 

Cultural Geographer & Researcher 

Ray Norman 

zingHOUSE unlimited

The lifestyle design enterprise and research network  eMAIL 1: raynorman7250@bigpond.com WEBsites:http://www.raynorman7250.blogspot.com 

 “A body of men holding themselves accountable to nobody ought not to be trusted by anybody.” Thomas Paine 

 “The standard you walk past is the standard you accept” David Morrison 

 https://raynormanadvocate.blogspot.com/

OPEN LETTER TO CITY OF LAUNCESTON COUNCIL: COPYRIGHT & MORAL RIGHTS IN LAUNCESTON

LINK

  

Dear Councillors and GM/CEO, 

Over some time it has been drawn to my attention that in various contexts Council is in careless breach of the Australian Copyrights Act and in particular its Moral Rights provisions. Of course this is not the first occasion that I have drawn this matter to Council’s attention and you will recall me doing so in regard to Stephen Walker’s ‘Tasmanian Tableau’ in Civic Square – References [1]•[2]•[3]•[4] – albeit the outcome being embellished with bureaucratic marketing spin claiming ‘there is nothing to see here’. 

To reiterate, moral rights legislation was enacted in Y2000 to protect the personal relationship between a creator and their work even if the creator no longer owns the work, or the copyright in the work. Moral rights concern the creator’s right to be properly attributed or credited, and the protection of their work from derogatory treatment. 

Importantly, moral rights legislation protects the personal relationship between a creator and their work even if Council 'owns' the work  and/or the copyright in the work. Moral rights concern the creator’s right to 'the intellectual properly' invested in a work and the legislation  protects the creator's, the author's, work from derogatory treatment. This applies to all aspects of 'cultural production'.  It applies equally to a poem, a letter, a shopping list, a sketch, a painting a civic monument, whatever.

Nonetheless, and despite the legislation, Council’s recalcitrance is now clear and evident. The situation is now as it was when Stephen Walker’s moral rights were bureaucratically compromised/overlooked and ultimately restored – albeit belatedly. 

My only point in raising this matter again and now is that the City of Launceston has, as is often said in the courts, ‘the accused has form your Honour’, and it continues to be the case on the evidence – and increasingly apparently. 

When I’ve raised this matter in the past my concerns have been dismissed as a ‘trifling issue’, ‘vexatious’ , 'of no moment', whatever. 

If newspapers were to be dismissing claims/feedback to do with such breaches, as Council does and has, the ructions in the public arena would be, as they should be, resonating loudly all the way to the courthouse if left to a litigious outcome. 

Albeit paraphrased, in the past both yourself as Mayor, and the GM/CEO as GM, have assured me that ‘Council is fully compliant with the law’ in regard to this matter. Does that assertion actually stack up?

Sadly, the ‘evidence on the ground’ seems to contradict that ‘deemed assertion’ that may well be reliant upon SECTION 62/2 of Tasmania’s Local Govt. Act for the latitude assumed and applied.

So what evidence? 

1. In Council publications photographs of people are typically used in a ‘marketing context’ without acknowledgement of the author and seemingly without the person’s permission. In some instances it might be argued that the practice is exploitative.

2. In the Council’s YOUtube Video ‘The 1929 Launceston floods’ its lack of ‘author acknowledgement’ is clear to see and currently 23,236 viewers have witnessed that since its launch. 

3. In the Municipality of Launceston there are examples of ‘public artworks’ that lack acknowledgement whereas 21st C technology offers relatively cheap, simple and effective strategies that runs counter to the assertion that it is ‘too hard or too expensive to do’. Moreover these strategies have wider applications relative to ‘marketing’ in the city in broad context. 

4. In Council’s ‘social media marketing’ acknowledgement is serially and surreally avoided – LINK to a most recent example. 

5. In regard to Council commissioning Thylacine ‘sculptures/installation’ for the Brisbane St. Mall the ‘author’ was/is not acknowledged and it is an open question in regard to them being respectfully engaged in adjustment to their placement and reconfiguration and any ongoing acknowledgement – thus their authorship may well be sullied given Council’s apparent ‘mindset’ in regard to this matter. 

6. In regard to Council Commissioning ‘Artists’ to paint ‘Traffic Signal Boxes’ at street lights – LINKS [1]•[2] [3] – the missing elements are; Council lack of acknowledgement in regard to authorship; and Council’s apparent granting of permission to compromise the integrity of the authors' work – or its permission by its omission in failing to require alternative action. Compounding the 'ethical issues' is the claim that the artists in Launceston are rewarded with 'exposure and warm and fuzzy feelings' but this remains an open question.

Given this backgrounding it is highly likely that other ‘exemplars of dissident behaviours’ can/will be found in regard to this issue. What appears to be evident is the City of Launceston predisposition to 'colonise' cultural production towards neutralising people's intellectual and cultural property.

As David Morrison tells us, “the standard we walk past is the standard we accept”. As much as I anticipate that your response to my raising this issue is ever likely to be ‘dismissive’, as it has been previously, I just cannot concede to the assertion of ‘triviality’, given the provisions of the copyright law. 

By way of example, looking at ‘the pandemic and governance’, and in Sydney especially so, the consequences of ‘looking away’, and even at this very moment, can be seen to have had serious consequences – even here albeit there is an apparent disinclination to look. 

Likewise, in regard to the dismissive attitude applied to the ‘Stephen Walker Tableau’, that situation ultimately cost ratepayers over $60K plus extra apparently and I witnessed $40K plus of that being expended one Sunday in Civic Square as you will no doubt recall. So, the cost is always carried by someone other than the perpetrator when it comes to Local Governance. 

What way forward? .

Unlike in the past I no longer see any benefit at all in looking away until the seriousness of the situation is realised. Moreover, I’m more convinced than ever that ‘LAUNCESTON COUNCIL’ has become delinquent and to the point where intervention is required given the potential consequences and losses being born by authors et al. 

Therefore I submit: 

1. That Council proactively seek ‘expert advice’ either from within its own ranks or say via Arts Law, to conduct an investigation relative to Council’s compliance with copyright legislation.

2. That Council itself undertakes a proactive in-house assessment and review of its ‘compliance and performance’ relative to copyright law and moral rights provisions in respect to it ‘marketing and publishing’. 

3. That Council consults with Hobart City Council in regard to the acknowledgement of ‘cultural producers’ and the integrity of their work in ‘public spaces’ as demonstrated by that council’s standards and performance relative to ‘Traffic Signal Boxes’. 

4. That Council seek early ‘expert advice’ from Arts Tasmania relative author’s ‘moral rights’ and that operations protocols relative to ‘art in public spaces’ administered and facilitated by Arts Tasmania on behalf of the Tasmanian Govt. 

5. That Council establish compliance protocols in regard to honouring its 'moral rights obligations' across all council operations, including the Queen Victoria Museum & Art Gallery, that meet  community expectations and aspirations in accord with its legislative obligations under copyright law.

6. That Council establish a meaningful community feedback process in regard to how ‘Council’s operational standards’ meet community expectations and aspirations in accord with its legislative obligations under copyright law.

Given that Council’s current mode of operation in regard to moral rights, on the evidence available, is seriously flawed and apparently the flaws have become deeply embedded in standard operational protocols. Given this, it will no doubt take some time to respond to matters raised here. Nonetheless, I would appreciate a response by August 6 after which date I will take further advice following Council’s response – or its non-response as has been my previous experience. 

Yours sincerely, Ray Norman

Ray Norman

<zingHOUSEunlimited>

The lifestyle design enterprise and research network

eMAIL 1: raynorman7250@bigpond.com

40 Delamere Crescent Trevallyn TAS. 7250

WEBsites:http://www.raynorman7250.blogspot.com

 

“A body of men holding themselves accountable to nobody ought not to be trusted by anybody.” Thomas Paine

“The standard you walk past is the standard you accept” David Morrison

 

https://raynormanadvocate.blogspot.com/

COMMUNITY OF OWNERSHIP & INTEREST

THE CONCEPT

DEFINITION: Community of Ownership and Interest: (compound noun/proposition) an all-inclusive collective/community of people, individuals and groups, who in any way have multi layered relationships with a place or cultural landscape and/or the operation of an institution, organisation or establishment – typically a network. 

USAGE & CONTEXT: cultural geography; civic and environmental planning; and community administration 

REFERENCE: Dr Bill Boyd, SCU et al 

CONTEXT NOTE: Used in opposition to ‘stakeholder’: one who has a legitimate interest, stake and/or pecuniary interest in an enterprise, endeavour or entity. Also used to demonstrate inclusivity as opposed to the exclusive implications attached to ’stakeholder’.

Communities of people have many items in which they share a sense of ownership - for example roads, schools, a health service, even a landscape. Those with such an interest form the Community of Ownership and Interest – its COI – for those items. .

All too often a COI's shared ownerships and interests are down played and may even be belittled or denied –particularly when contentious or complex issues are involved. However, recognising the layerings of ownerships and interests, and the social cum cultural dynamics involved, can offer a way forward in dispute resolution plus better, and more inclusive, understandings of 'place'. 

If we listed items that had a COI we would include items and locations that were owned by the public – public places and spaces – such as:

• A park; 
• A river; 
• A monument ;
• A memorial; 
• An institution; 
• A heritage building; 
• A museum; 
• A water supply 
• A forest;
• A festival 
• A ritual; 

clearly the list is as endless as the kinds of attachments people have for places, things and events.

And then there is the issue of 'cultural property' and 'cultural knowledge' where there are subliminal layers of 'cognitive ownerships' that increasingly come into play with the changing ways Indigenous cultural material – Australian & other – is currently being understood. 

Indeed, individuals within a place’s/event's/space's/knowledge system's COI will almost certainly have multiple layers of ownership and interest in it. The ‘truth’ in the ownership and interest here is ‘cognitive,’ a matter of ‘lore’ rather than ‘law’ – that which is taught; hence to do with wisdom; concerning cultural knowledge, traditions and beliefs. 

It pertains to cognition, the process of knowing, being aware, the acts of thinking, learning and judging. If we take a museum as an exemplar, museums are to do with cognition – musing; the contemplative; the meditative. If we look at courts, then they are to do with power over conduct; enforcement and authority; control and regulation, guilt and innocence – none of which have a place in musing places, nor much to do with musing. 

Furthermore, members of the COI should be understood as having both rites and obligations commensurate with their claimed ownership, expressed interest and their relationship to the institution and its overall enterprise. 

A member of the COI may also be referred to as a “stakeholder” but stakeholdership in its current usage has generally come to mean a person, group, business or organisation that has some kind vested or pecuniary interest in something or a place. 

Typically, 'stakeholders' assert their rights when there is a contentious decision to be made. However, 'stakeholders' are rarely called upon to meet or acknowledge an obligation. 

Conversely, members of a COI will have innate understandings of the obligations that are expected of them and the rights they expect to enjoy – indeed, there are likely to be stakeholders in the COI mix. 

It is just the case that for an institution say, the COI mix, when assessed from outside, is intentionally, functionally and socially more inclusive. That is more inclusive than say a list of stakeholders drawn up in respect to a development project that governments – Local, State & Federal – typically make decisions about. 

Stakeholder groups and Communities of Ownership and Interest are concepts with kindred sensibilities – law and lore, the former reinforcing the latter. Nonetheless, they engage with different community sensibilities; with different expectations and different relationships – even if sometimes many of the same people have a ‘stake’ in something as well as other relationships as a member of a COI.

GO TO  http://auditingplacedness.blogspot.com/

eMAIL TO COUNCILLORS: Failing Council Processes

Contact Us <contactus@launceston.tas.gov.au> ; , Mayor Albert van Zetten : <Mayor@launceston.tas.gov.au>, Deputy Mayor Danny Gibson <Danny.Gibson@launceston.tas.gov.au>;Councillor Andrea Dawkins <andrea.dawkins@launceston.tas.gov.au>, Councillor Nick Daking <Nick.Daking@launceston.tas.gov.au>, Councillor Hugh McKenzie <Hugh.Mckenzie@launceston.tas.gov.au>, Councillor Karina Stojansek <Karina.Stojansek@launceston.tas.gov.au>, Councillor Rob Soward <Rob.Soward@launceston.tas.gov.au>, Councillor Paul Spencer <paul.spencer@launceston.tas.gov.au>, Councillor Jim Cox <Jim.Cox@launceston.tas.gov.au>, Councillor Alan Harris <alan.harris@launceston.tas.gov.au>, Councillor Tim Walker <Tim.Walker@launceston.tas.gov.au>;

Dear Mayor & Councillors,

 

I write on my own account and on behalf of a group of clients in regard to Council’s inadequate management of its COVID-19 Grants devised and designed for the purpose of assisting Launceston businesses cope with the pandemic’s impacts upon business viability in the city. I and my clints agree that this was an appropriate initiative, even in retrospect for those who questioned it at time.

 

The issue right now is the outright delinquency of some of the grant recipients. That is, once the adequacy and the deficiencies of the ‘grants process’ are put to one side – devised on the hop as it was. The recent ‘naming and shaming’ of those recipients who have not been able or willing to acquit the grant of ratepayers’ monies is totally inappropriate. 

 

For the truly unaccountable and recalcitrant recipients, they will brush their ‘exposure’ off as ‘yesterday’s news’.Nonetheless, for some others there will be a sense of injustice depending upon their personal circumstances. None of this is in any way helpful or useful.

 

Standard practice with funding agencies is totally different as I understand the processes and their purpose. I speak here with considerable experience and first-hand knowledge as a ‘serial grant recipient’ in my professional life – some 30 years plus. Moreover, for part of that time I administered a Tasmanian State Govt ‘Grants and Loans Program’ that was great deal larger than Council’s initiative last year and fully accountable to the Tasmanian Auditor General.

 

Thus I find Council’s apparent disinclination to be accountable itself, or to hold grant recipients truly accountable, very concerning. Likewise, my clients find it all so bewildering to say the very least. The base issue here is that in receiving ‘agrant for a purpose’ the recipients have‘contractual obligations’ to use grant monies for the purpose for which it was intended.  Arguably, and on the available evidence, non-compliant grant recipient are in breach of their ‘contract obligations’ with Launceston’s ratepayers. 

 

What needs to done now? Firstly, there needs to be acknowledgement on the part of the elected representatives that there is a need to ensure that recipients of ‘ratepayers’ monies’ must be held accountable for the monies they receive from ratepayers. That is money that might well be used for other purposes and that might well be for purpose where other ‘needs’ need to be met.

 

After that Councillors should insist:

 

• That all non-compliant grant recipients are notified that they have 30 days to demonstrate that they individually have applied the grant they have received for ‘the purpose for which it was intended’; and

 

• Notify these ‘recipient’ who have thus far have ‘not acquitted their grant’ that unless they can do so they will be required to refund the grant money in order that it can be redirected to other purposes; and

 

• Notify them that if for ‘reasons of hardship’ they are unable to meet the requirements above they must notify Council within 30 days so as to avoid further overt action being taken to recover the funds.

 

Council has the capacity and the administrative mechanism in place for the receipt of funds and in this instance may choose to impose a ‘rate levy’ upon non-compliant grant recipients who are indeed ratepayers. Indeed, Council employs a ‘Compliance Officer’ who should have the wherewithal to ensure that non-compliant grant recipients meet their ‘contractual obligations’.

 

If there is the will on the part of the elected representatives – and that appears to be in doubt – this class of ‘money recovery’ can/could/might be initiated almost immediately. If they, as councillors, are inhibited in any way they should declare their inhibitions with the people they represent openly band transparently – and sooner rather than later. 

 

Given that Council meets this week anyone of you have the opportunity to share my concerns, and that of my clients, on the public record. I look forward with interest to the outcome of your shared concerned with ratepayers, some of whom are significantly aggrieved.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Ray Norman

Ray Norman

<zingHOUSEunlimited>

The lifestyle design enterprise and research network

eMAIL 1: raynorman7250@bigpond.com

40 Delamere Crescent Trevallyn TAS. 7250

WEBsites:http://www.raynorman7250.blogspot.com

 

“A body of men holding themselves accountable to nobody ought not to be trusted by anybody.” Thomas Paine

“The standard you walk past is the standard you accept” David Morrison

 

https://raynormanadvocate.blogspot.com/