CONTEXT

This response to the QVMAG's annual report is in lieu of responding at the City of Launceston's Annual General Meeting (CoL AGM). Typically, it is said that responses can be made at the meeting but generally no provision is made for this to happen in a meaningful way. Moreover, the time available for a critical inquiry is totally inadequate to the point of being impractical and virtually impossible. Currently, there is a real need for such an 'inquiry' on the grounds of equity and accountability. 

In the context of the AGM, questions are typically taken on notice and answered out of context and some months later – if addressed at all. I do not believe that this is in any way appropriate given the current size and nature of the QVMAG as a 'community owned cultural operation' in its 21st C context.

In addition, 'the community' has been investing  in the institution for a very long time and over time it has not kept pace with developments in the field.

Moreover, ratepayers' make compulsory and un-notified contributions to the QVMAG's recurrent budget and capital works funding while others 'on trust', including State and Federal Govt., make significant contributions to the operation.

Therefore, and unquestionably:

• The evident shifts in the CoL's economic and social base the QVMAG operation requires ongoing critical scrutiny relative to policy development and its strategic positioning and purposefulness;

• Given the State's Govt. ongoing funding commitment, the report is ostensibly prepared for the State Govt grant acquittal purposes. Arguably, it should not be dealt with in the context of critical assessment for the first time at a forum such the CoL AGM on the assumption that its contents are deemed to be sufficient;

• The disruptive shifts in the city's, and the region's, economic base that are increasingly evident in the context of the short, medium and longer term social cum cultural outcomes relevant to the region's economy, the QVMAG requires dedicated accountable, and transparent, governance plus responsive management. Currently, it is evident that the functions of governance and management are blurred.

The QVMAG is one of the city's most important assets with an operational budget managed without  it being functionally accountable to its Community of Ownership and Interests (COI) due in large part to the fundamental blurring of the functions and purpose of 'management' and 'governance'.

Internationally, regional museums are long-standing exemplars of successful social cum cultural enterprises, run on a business-like basis and playing valuable roles in their communities, contributing to a sense of place and making up an important part of the local/regional economy. They are owned in 'law and lore' by the community, they are accountable to their COI

'Governance' is the system by which something is directed and controlled. A useful definition of corporate governance of community 'musingplaces' is that it is the means of ensuring longterm sustainability by the collective direction of the museum's affairs, while being accountable to and complying with the interests of its COI who 'entrust musingplaces' governance' to do these things on behalf of the COI. It's governance's role to deliver the intended 'dividends' – social, cultural, fiscal.

Management on the other hand is to do with the administration of the operation/institution and the implementation of the strategic policy determinations of governance. In regard to the QVMAG these separate roles and functions have become blurred – and arguably to the institution's detriment.

Trustees/governors have the following primary responsibilities:

• Defining and determining the institution's 'purpose' and consequently determining its mission, vision, policies and strategic directions; 
• Providing continuity for managing and implementing the institution’s affairs; 
• Setting the rate of progress the institution takes to fulfil its purpose and in reaching its goals – its mission and vision; and 
• Securing the institution's identity and COI support in the context of the institution's mission, vision, mandate, beliefs and long-term direction and purpose.

As in previous years the report presents, questions upon question to be asked and it seems as clear as ever that the report has been made upon some vision of the status quo and where  'operational convenience' is the order of the day. When an operation is envisaged as a 'cost centre' it, as noted before, cost centres are perpetually at risk given that as costs rise and allocated income remains relatively static, then 'success is survival'!

What is at risk here? Actually the risks are much the same as they have been for well over a decade:

• The security of the QVMAG's collections given that:

• It is imagined that the QVMAG  "over collected"– and deaccessions are thus spoken of and considered – accountability with transparent policies need to be in place; and

• Ownership of the collections rests with the City of Launceston and thus under SECTION  62 of the Local Govt. Act [LINK] the General Manager has the capacity – and in the past has asserted willingness – to dispose of components of the collections on advice she/he deems to be expert advice; and

• The collections are of such importance that they should be seen as being a 'part of the national estate' and thus should be beyond, safe from, the whim of any individual.

Indeed, the QVMAG's collections require more formal, more substantial protection than they currently enjoy.

• Secondly, the 'social licence' under which the Tasmanian Government in 1950 [LINK] endowed the city of Launceston with the ownership in 'law' has arguably expired given that the collections now represent the 'cultural property' of a diverse Community of Ownership m& Interest [LINK]. 

Arguably, the assumptions of a social license invoked 60 years ago have been overtaken and are well past their use-by-date.

Together these things represent a significant set of risks that needs to be mitigated. Given all that is at stake some 'innovation' is likely to be required given the entrenched positions various groups of people have come to over time – positions that are compounded upon 'deemed goods'. A relatively new innovation in 'engaged public administration' that may offer a way forward is the newDEMOCRACY operation – [LINK]. 

newDemocracy is first and foremost a research organisation. Its principal interest is to ensure citizens trust government decision making. It does this by working with governments to design and operate public engagement projects that enable everyday people to contribute to reaching shared and trusted recommendations around challenging areas of public policy. 

newDemocracy seeks to work exclusively with government decision-making and not for private individuals or companies. Against this background newDemocracy facilitated CITIZENSjuries offer considerable promise in regard to the resolution of issues entrenched in the status quo.