QVMAG REPORTING
The answer to questions minuted Council Minutes – QVMAG Governors/Trustees – Michael Stretton (Chief Executive Officer) – FILE NO: SF6381 – advised that the “QVMAG's current formal reporting requirement is through the Annual Report. Council also receives quarterly activity reports.” – yet it turns out to be the case that there are "no regular quarterly activity reports" available for public scrutiny.
Acting on the advice provided to Council, the QVMAG's default Trustees, on April 30 I requested copies of the reported “quarterly activity reports” to be informed that “These reports were instituted this year (2020?)” and I was ultimately directed to the Agenda for Feb 20, 2020 only to discover it is the first and only such activity report.
As a report on an operation that
• Draws on the ‘Public Purse’ to the extent of something in the order of $7Million PA currently; and
• Conscripts ratepayers to provide the lion’s share of this funding; and that
• Holds in trust collections valued at something in the order of $230Mil- $240Mil that include community cultural assets, unique historic records, priceless scientific specimens and intellectual property belonging to a broad spectrum ‘Community of Ownership and Interest’; and where
• The city’s ‘Councillors’ are ‘entrusted’, consistent with Tasmania’s Museums Act, the QVMAG’s default governing body/’trustees’ are ‘entrusted’ to purposefully manage/govern the QVMAG; aa an operation; and where
• Councillors as ‘trustees’, by convention, are trusted to regulate the QVMAG consequent to the Act – determine policy and strategic direction.
Importantly as QVMAG Governors/Trustees Councillors have all the obligations relevant to the full management and superintendence of the institution.
Consistent with that, they are obligated to do all things, except employ persons, that appear to them proper to make the QVMAG best serve the public as a museum; and specifically, “grow, preserve, interpret and share the QVMAG collections in an inclusive, creative and sustainable way in perpetuity” this report lacks the kind of information that would enable them to meet this onerous set of obligations.
This is especially so given that this report is supposedly the model for future activity reporting.
Notably, what is missing from the report is a ‘fiscal overview’ of the operation. This is a serious weakness as, typically, financial reporting in concert with ‘activity reporting’ enables meaningful critical analysis of operational outcomes that in turn inform policy determination and the ongoing adjustment of strategic alignments and budget reviews.
So, in brief, as an ‘activity report’ without a fiscal perspective it is virtually meaningless given that financial activity is ‘the element’ that gives meaning and substance to reporting at any level.
Currently, at a personal household level, and in a 21st C context, we would all expect our bank to tell us in detail, and within an hour:
• The contents of our accounts;
• The number of transaction attributed to each one; plus
• A range of other information if called for.
The expectation that a relatively detailed financial report is not unrealistic. Indeed, it should be an expectation that there be one in accord with appropriate professional administration standards.
Therefore, the lack of a ‘fiscal perspective’ raises serious questions:
• Firstly, in regard to the legitimacy of the reporting; and
• Secondly, in regard to the ‘trustworthyness’ of the reporting in every aspect.
Given that the QVMAG operates as a ‘cost centre’ it is inconceivable that its management might contemplate presenting an ‘activity report’ without fiscal backgrounding. Given that ‘management’ has, fundamentally failed to deliver, the report’s veracity must be compromised at the very least.
Given that Council, the ‘Trustees’, might well choose to look away and downplay the lack of a financial dimension this is concerning. However, this ‘lack’ sadly, might say something significant about the trustworthiness of the QVMAG as a public institution.
Moreover, it might also alert ‘cultural investors’ to consider the security of an institution that they might want to consider entrusting their funding, cultural assets, social histories, intellectual property, etc. with.
The so-called “quarterly activity report” presented to Council Feb 20, 2020 lacks a financial component and consequent to that it is by-and-large meaningless. Moreover, this lack poses a myriad of questions all demanding answers in the context of accountability and transparency.
COLLECTIONS
The Council Feb 20, 2020 “quarterly activity report” has all the hallmarks of a ‘gloss over exercise’ and is more significant in regard to what it does not report than what it does.
Notably, the report does not report on the progress of the ‘collection audit’ to tell the institution’s Governors/Trustees and the institution’s ‘cultural investors’ – the institution’s Community of Ownership and Interest (COI), ratepayers, taxpayers, et al – about its progress and especially so, given the financial resources committed to the process.This lack of information is problematic!
The lack of reporting on:
• The current numbers of registrations;
• The level of digitisations achieved thus far;
• The total number of, and value of, donations received within the reporting period;
• The number of enquiries received and processed and an overview of their source;
• Any collection improvements and or developments;
• The extent of any damage to the collection discovered;
• The dimension of conservation treatments in process and in prospect.
The lack of this information ultimately compromises the professional standing of the institution.
Perhaps more significantly, it is insulting to Councillors/Trustees to withhold this class of information. Arguably doing so holds the Trustees and 'trusteeship' in contempt. Inadvertently or deliberately it hardly matters it is diminishing in the context of trusteeship and the trust invested in the role – it is contemptuous, arrogant and outrageous.
INCOME GENERATION
The most notable omission in the report is any kind of reporting on income generation. Given that it is a factor that touches every last element of the QVMAG's operation it is an omission that cannot be overlooked.
In the end, the reporting of 'income received' is a matter of accountability and when the operation depends upon the 'public purse' , transparency is also front and centre in the reporting paradigm.
In the end, the reporting of 'income received' is a matter of accountability and when the operation depends upon the 'public purse' , transparency is also front and centre in the reporting paradigm.
The key question arising asks 'is the income received being directed to the purpose for which it is intended'? That the reporting simply does not report its income is symptomatic of 'accountability avoidance.'
By extension, and given the operation's current 'cost centre status', questions such as these arise:
• What incremental State Govt. recurrent funding has been received and towards what purpose?
• What cash donations have been received, in what context and when?
• What cash sponsorships – corporate or private – have been received and for what purpose?
• What grants have been applied for and received or not received?
• What fees and charges have been received for what services, paid by whom and when?
• What admission fees have been received for what events and when?
• What is the income that has been received from sales, in what context and when?
After all this come a question to do with the value of in-kind support the operation receives. Along with this question another arises in regard to the application of the income to whatever purpose for which it was received.
EXHIBITIONS
In accord with the operation's mission "to grow, preserve, interpret and share the QVMAG collections in an inclusive, creative and sustainable way in perpetuity", one of the institution’s primary purposes is to ‘publish’ its collections in order that they are accessible.
The report projects a strategy that is embedded in the notion of more and more of the same old same old. While this might have some relevance, it signals a paradigm of publication that no longer fits 21st C opportunities, options and ‘audience’ demands.
The report is essentially a defence of the status quo and ignores the marketing dimension relevant to the institutions purpose in a 21st C context albeit that it flags some ‘gunnado’ prospects that have not been realised albeit the very kind of publication/exhibit that would be ‘deliverable online’ and as likely as not also generating some income.
The question hanging in the air is why not?
More to the point, ‘if’ the report had a fiscal dimension the ‘need’ for this kind of initiative that would/could expand and the ‘publication paradigm’ would be more obvious and measurable – and thus inviting critical analysis rather than passive acceptance of the status quo and stagnation.
The reported “rehang” of the colonial collection at Royal Park lacks an explanation of the ‘curatorial context’. Presumably, this is because it is ’secret museum business’ not to be discussed with either ‘the Trustees’ or indeed the ‘great unwashed’ who do not visit museums and art galleries. There is a message in such assumptions and especially so when ‘marketing’ keeps on keeping on delivering the same old same old.
Increasingly, it becomes apparent that any kind of critical interrogation of the underlying cultural theory, is unwelcome.
EDUCATION
The expansion of the education components of the institutions ‘education program’ is to be welcomed and especially so in regard to Aboriginal sensibilities and sensitivities being addressed. Indeed, this is a component of the QVMAG’s program that has been wanting for – and for a very long time.
The expansion of the ‘Learning Team’s’ work is also to be welcomed yet there seems to be an unrecognised gap between program development and ‘marketing’. The fact that the report does not really talk about marketing is a kind of ‘relevance barometer’ that speaks loudly of stagnation and ‘the culture of the doldrums’.
This component of the report is also resplendent with the ‘gunnado factor’ with no mention of performance indicators being set let alone timelines, measurables or income generation being either discussed or considered.
There is talk about “a number of new ways of offering programmes” which in the end looks a lot like a very naive attempt to deflect critical assessment.
Like we are ‘gunna do’ something rather than this or that is in development with anticipated outcomes due at some specific time to report on whenever in this or that context.
The notion of reducing “barriers” and increasing participation by lowering costs is again naive – albeit one of the rare instances where fiscal matters are invoked.
The assertion that “plans are underway for interactive online educational resources and outreach programs” might be more convincing if there were timelines, ‘measureables’, spoken of, not to mention funding strategies etc.
REDEVELOPMENT
The report talks about 2020 the time to “put plans and practices in place that set the Museum in good stead for a sustainable and successful future”. Beyond that there is hollow rhetoric citing the University of Tasmania (UTAS) and the QVMAG coming together “as a Centre of Excellence for Northern Tasmania.” Yet there are no specifics about how, when and exactly what that might become as some kind of ‘performance indicator’ to be met, tested, whatever.
Looking forward to some “start of works” that on the ground is likely to be years away and without any indication of anything like ‘memorandums of understandings’ has all the hallmarks of dancing with the fairies and hoping for the best – and with everything crossed. Credible governance would/should be looking for sound and well developed strategies that fit the circumstance to hand. More to the point, expert and convincing management would be seeking to deliver on such expectation in its reporting.
Looking forward to some “start of works” that on the ground is likely to be years away and without any indication of anything like ‘memorandums of understandings’ has all the hallmarks of dancing with the fairies and hoping for the best – and with everything crossed. Credible governance would/should be looking for sound and well developed strategies that fit the circumstance to hand. More to the point, expert and convincing management would be seeking to deliver on such expectation in its reporting.
This is yet another aspect of the report where the lack of a financial component casts a shadow over the reporting, all the while locating it in some ill-defined space that wants to be overlooked for fear of accountability being invoked.
STAKEHOLDERS
The first thing that needs to be said here is that shoving all the groups of people who have been put together under the heading of “stakeholder” is somewhat curious.
A stakeholder is a person, an employee, a customer, a citizen, a subsidiary, involved with an organisation, institution, whatever. Consequently, as ‘stakeholders’ they have ‘responsibilities and obligations’ to an institution. In the case of the QVMAG, 'stakeholders' would therefore have an interest in, a stake in, the operations success as a museum and art gallery – a community cultural endeavour.
A stakeholder is a person, an employee, a customer, a citizen, a subsidiary, involved with an organisation, institution, whatever. Consequently, as ‘stakeholders’ they have ‘responsibilities and obligations’ to an institution. In the case of the QVMAG, 'stakeholders' would therefore have an interest in, a stake in, the operations success as a museum and art gallery – a community cultural endeavour.
It is all well and good to bundle these people/groups in this way but leaving out the city’s ratepayers and other residents who collectively provide the lion’s share of the institution’s recurrent funding is narrow minded. Doing this, sends unfortunate messages to the Council's constituents as well as all those other people who in their various ways have invested their trust in the institution.
These people, residents, ratepayers, taxpayers, donors, sponsors, whoever, are the very people to whom the institution must see itself as being the most accountable to.
The indication that the report ‘does not’ even come close to acknowledging them in its reporting is not only disrespectful, in the end, the reporting apparently, regards them with a kind of distain and disregard – and almost unambiguously.
Moreover, putting the kindest inflection upon it, this ‘negative imagining’ becomes a ‘marketing impediment’ and at the very least this must be called out.
The more positive imagining here is to acknowledge all these ‘people’ as being members of the institution’s Community of Ownership and Interest – a layered, inclusive, multi-dimensional, multi-faceted community – thus allowing this ‘inclusiveness’ to be a ‘marketing positive’ – a win-win alternative to insiders and outsiders.
The referencing of the Museum Governance Advisory Board (MGAB) is more than curious given that;
• Anecdotally, the MGAB rarely meets;
• Despite this ‘board’ being a ‘Council Committee’ it does not report directly and independently to Council;
• Anecdotally, the board has become a ‘bureaucratic captive’ of management and has almost no opportunity to formally communicate directly or independently with the institution’s COI; and
• Also, it appears as if the board’s deliberations, and governance ‘advice’, is regarded as ‘confidential’ by default – albeit that the QVMAG is by design, totally dependent upon the ‘public purse’.
While the initiation of the Aboriginal Reference Group (ARG) came far too late in the institution’s life, sadly, albeit anecdotally, ARG meets infrequently with people being played off against each other with ‘the group’ being functionally isolated from the Council/Trustees. ARG’s purpose is to facilitate culturally appropriate policy determinations and the implementation of culturally sensitive strategies. Anecdotally, this does not seem to be happening, and in 2020, this is concerning.
Furthermore, the ARG is apparently the institution’s only ‘reference group’. In a 21st C context this is concerning given that the institution, like any other musingplace, is quite unable to have ‘on staff’ a full spectrum of experts.
For instance, why not a science reference group, a botany reference group, a social history reference group etc. etc.? Given the extent of, and the diversity of, the institution’s collections and its Community of Ownership and Interest the institution needs this kind of support in order to deserve its ‘social licence’. In turn this kind of advice base would enable Council to conscript funding from ratepayers, residents and the State Govt. coffers with greater authority.
It is also somewhat curious that the members of the ‘Friends of the Museum’ are currently enjoying a ‘privileged status’ within the institution’s Community of Ownership and Interest. Yes, the group, as an auxiliary operation, does provide support in various forms to the QVMAG operation but so too, in other ways, do affiliated organisations such as the Royal Society, the Historical Society et al.
Given that the ‘Arts Foundation’ primarily exists to support the QVMAG’s ‘collecting’ it is relevant that the foundation figures in the institution’s reporting. It only becomes problematic when the foundation somewhat outranks other components of the institution’s Community of Ownership and Interest.
If the foundation was to raise funds for acquisitions that didn’t fit the institution’s ‘collection policy‘, that would be more than unfortunate. Those determinations belong to and with the institution’s 'governance' and not with its management nor some external group – except in an advisory capacity.
Nevertheless, when an auxiliary body operates collaboratively and cooperatively with ‘governance’ there should almost always be positive outcomes relative to the institution’s designated purpose.
What these organisations do to support their memberships is coincidentally significant to QVMAG programming but nonetheless quite important in respect to ‘marketing’ the institution’s programming and gauging its relevance in the context of local social discourses.
Yet, the QVMAG’s networking needs to extend well beyond these organisations. Indeed, it needs to focus some attention nationally and internationally in the context of it being a 21st C ‘musingplace’ – and one connected to the world’s musingplaces.
In so many instances the ‘larder of expertise’ in the region already does this, yet it is the case they are so very often side lined by the institution which is perplexing.
This report reflects an imperative, presumably determined internally, that the institution. operate in relative isolation from the institution’s Community of Ownership and Interest.
Increasingly all this 'internalism' seems to be in play in isolation from governance. It has become evident that over recent years that management has been able to ‘distance’ the institution’s operation well away from its governance. This seems to have arrived at a point where the operation can afford to imagine that it is functionally unaccountable to its governance. This report seems to be evidence of that.
For clearer evidence of this the minutes of Council’s February 20, 2020 meeting – Page 54 Item 17.1 FILE NO: SF5784 – Council unanimously endorsed the report without discussion with Mayor van Zetten moving the motion and the Deputy Mayor seconding it.
Concerningly, it is claimed that the report is a “quarterly activity report” – minutes 8.1.2 Public Questions on Notice - Mr Ray Norman - QVMAG Update - Council Meeting - 16 April 2020 FILE NO: SF6381– yet there is no such reporting preceeding it and as yet none to follow it, albeit that one would have fallen due in early April 2020.
To reiterate, within the report:
• There is little to no reporting of QVMAG acquisitions or deaccessions/disposals of collection material or indeed any other assets;
• There is no reporting relevant to income generation, sponsorships and or donations and indeed no reporting in regard to financial activity whatsoever;
• There is no reporting of loans arrangement for QVMAG collection material and the costs and/or income derived;
• There is no reporting of updated staffing arrangements relative strategic purposes while anecdotally there are reports that there have been significant changes relative to staffing;
• There is no reporting of updated program development with income and/or cost projections;
• There is no reporting of research outcomes and/or the costs attributed to such undertakings and specifically peer reviewed publications;
• There is no reporting of strategic forward planning relative programming across Council’s ‘cultural network’;
• There is no reporting relevant to ‘volunteer contributions’ and their significance in delivering programming and whatever research outcomes there may have been;
• There is no reporting relative to income generation across Council’s ‘cultural network’ and performance measures being achieved or otherwise;
• There is no reporting relative to capital works and/or infrastructure provision and the associated funding.
To put this in context, these omissions are set against the background that:
• The QVMAG, as a Council operation, albeit a ‘non-core operation’. draws on the ‘Public Purse’ to the extent of something in the order of $7Million PA currently; and
• The city’s ratepayers are conscripted to provide the lion’s share of this funding; and
• The QVMAG holds in trust collections valued at something in the order of $230- $240 Million plus priceless cultural material including unique historic records, priceless scientific specimens as well as intellectual and cultural property belonging to a broad spectrum ‘Community of Ownership and Interest’; and
• Consistent with Tasmania’s Museums Act, the city’s ‘Councillors’, the QVMAG’s default governing body/’trustees’ are ‘entrusted’ to:
• Purposefully manage/govern the QVMAG; and
• As ‘trustees’, by convention, trusted to regulate the QVMAG consequent to the Act – determine policy and strategic direction;
• Having all the obligations relevant to the full management and superintendence of the QVMAG; and
• To do all things, except employ persons, that appear to them proper to make the QVMAG best serve the public as a museum; and specifically
IN CONCLUSION
As a 'local government operation' it is increasingly clear that 'musingplaces' sit very uncomfortably within that context. This is so given that the 'accountability' that applies in the corporate sector does not by necessity pertain in the administration of local governance.
Thus the 'trust' that people assume to be reliably delivered upon in the end is dependent upon, in Tasmania at least, the inclinations and priorities of local governance's bureaucracies. Moreover, 'musingplaces' are not core business for local governance. Likewise, sports organisations, religious organisations, theatre companies, charities, bands, festivals, cultural events, choirs, independent schools, community arts groups, fitness groups, tertiary institutions, etc. are not core business for local government. Nonetheless all might well be 'fundable' in some way by local government.
Local government may well have a role in funding and/or supporting the activities of any of these organisations, or indeed all of them, but it is clearly outside the competencies of local government to both govern and manage any such operation as identified here – and in particular musingplaces.
On the available evidence the City of Launceston should be proactively divesting itself of the QVMAG as a 'local government operation' even if it were to:
• Retain ownership of its infrastructure;
• Maintain buildings and their environments as a part of a lease agreement;
• Provide funding to support the institution's recurrent expenditure;
• Provide acquisition funding from time to time; and
• Provide project funding in competition with like operations within Council's jurisdiction.
In doing all these things Council could remain transparently accountable to its constituency and the institution would be accountable to its funding agencies, donors, sponsors and importantly, to its Community of Ownership and Interest.
No comments:
Post a Comment