THE 2017/2018 REPORT

OVERVIEW

Given that this report focuses on the operational aspect of the QVMAG as an institution there are aspects of 'the institution' about which it is relatively silent. This is disappointing from the perspective of an engaged member of its COI. 

As a researcher the QVMAG is an aspect of my working 'laboratory' conveniently located at the bottom the hill I live on and that affords me a vantage point to contemplate the 'cultural landscape' that is 'Launceston'.

Being a 'ratepayer' of 35 years standing I have a fiscal interest in 'the place', the QVMAG, and the social cum cultural dividends that it is there to deliver. After that, within the QVMAG's collections the institution holds works in which I have intellectual property invested. Thus, along with many, many others I have multiple and overlaying layers of ownership and interest. I consequently regard myself as being a part of the QVMAG's COI.

• Click here to access the Annual Report

• Click here to access the QVMAG Strategic Plan
• Click here to access questions arising from 2016/17 Annual Report

The questions arising from the 2016/17 report essentially went unanswered and arguably unaddressed. The 'status quo' survives despite the identified weaknesses and missed opportunities. However, new questions and concerns arise, mostly to do with the lack of ongoing reporting of the institution's activities and programming. It appears as if this aspect  of the institution's accountability is discretionary. 

This can be demonstrated by the lack of reporting in the fortnightly agenda papers which might be construed as:
• A disinclination on the part of management to inform the Aldermen/Trustees/Governors to include them in 'operational matters' in order to avoid their attention to policy and strategic weaknesses, anomalies and/or opportunities – thus avoiding unwelcome interference/engagement.
• The underlying assumption seemingly being that while the 'Default Trustees' where there to determine policy and strategy – initiate it even – management seemingly worked on the assumption that they lacked the 'expertise' or at least the 'brand of expertise' the General Manager might deems to be appropriate under SECTION 65 of the Local Govt Act where she/he must guarantee the expertise of all advice offered to Aldermen/Trustees. To the extent that this is so, the hubris and arrogance is palpable.
•  The disinclination to engage the QVMAG's COI in matters pertaining to the institution's operation, programming, research or policy development, all of which apparently fall under the category of 'confidential museum business' despite the fact that the COI by-an-large fund and support the institution. Indeed, they are its raison d’etre and in the end the apparent 'disinclination' – for whatever reason – is disrespectful on the part of management and an abdication of trust on the part of governance. 

QUESTION: What new QVMAG policy initiatives were initiated, approved and implemented by Council (QVMAG Governance) in 2017-18?
•  It would seem that the status quo prevailed for all intention purposes yet within the reporting period the Robin Archer cultural survey was in process. For whatever reason this  has not been reported on despite it being reported that it would impact upon the QVMAG operation.
•  The Director's Report makes mention, scant mention of an 'organisational review' carried out by the Searchlight Group but only the briefest report somewhat smoothed over appears in the report. Again this has the hallmarks of 'management managing governance' with the Trustee/Aldermen appearing to be comfortably compliant in their abdication.

QUESTION: What policy developments have there been in regard to the organisational review?
•  It can be deduced that essentially policy setting have not changed despite the review and the increasing awareness that 'collection security' is an issue and indeed its an issue around which there has been contention for some time. In fact it is apparent that an operational audit is in process which in turn indicates that the QVMAG's acquisition, accessioning  and de-accession policies are in need of review – arguably urgently so.

QUESTION: What was the level of ‘authorised’ formal and funded research projects that were undertaken by the QVMAG in the reporting period given its status as a 'research body'.
•  It can be deduced that there appears to be a paucity of research leading to publications or no formal assessment of 'research' projects beyond data/specimen/object 'collecting'. To the extent that this may characterise 'research effort', how can productivity and performance be measured and against what indicators? Indeed, how might such a perception impact upon 'institutional credibility'?

QUESTION: How, and by what process, are acquisitions and de-accessions approved, when, by whom and against what criteria? Moreover, do the processes reflect 'best practice' in the sector – nationally/internationally?
•  It can be deduced that the processes are basically in-house processes and only reported on in the annual report unless perhaps in an extraordinary circumstance. When accessioning and cataloguing do not stand up to audit who is accountable, with what transparency and when is it reported and to whom? Clearly the answers to these questions impact upon the trust invested in the institution.

QUESTION: Given 'Organisational Structure' presented in the report clearly does not articulate a role for 'governance' is this intended to reflect a circumstance where 'Trustee/Aldermen' have seemingly abdicated their role in QVMAG and have devolved to management the strategic determinations of governance along with all pertinent policy decision making?

•  Given that Council Agendas rarely contain items pertaining to the QVMAG  this seems to reflect a devolution of authority. The questions then arise in regard to how and when this comes about and to what extent it represents transparency in governance and indeed, functional accountability.

QUESTION: Given that the report does not identify its membership – staff, associates, et al – and their qualifications, to what extent is it perceived that this compromises the institutions credibility, accountability and its raison d'etre?
•  There are many levels upon which 'the public' will want/need to engage with the institution, and vice versa, relative to the 'expertise' on offer. The absence of this information either on the institution's website or within its annual report arguably does compromise the report's/institution's credibility while raising a range of questions relative to credibility and accountability. Plus, funding agencies, sponsors and donors will need/want this information as an element of their decision making.

From a management cum marketing perspective it is difficult to fathom the 'purpose' in keeping this class of information confidential.

IN CONCLUSION

In addition to the above there are many more questions that are apparently not being asked by the QVMAG's Trustee/Aldermen. There is one coming from the graphic presentation of 'metrics data' in that it lacks relevant detailing to do with staffing, volunteering, attendances, productivity, programming, etc. and that renders it ambiguous to say the least – potentially deceptive. In the context of assessing outcomes and performance this is more than unhelpful and it demonstrates a disinclination to be transparent or to deliver on accountability. 

With the Banking Royal Commission in progress the community and the community, and without doubt the corporate world too, are being instructed in accountability and transparency in governance. The quote attributed to the 2016 Australian of the Year,  David Morrison, “The standard you walk past is the standard you accept” rings in ones ear while reading this report. The credibility bar appears to have been set very low.

For instance, while the report claims an increase in attendances, which it seems is factual, but on the other hand it is minimal relative to the region's assumed demographic. With attendances reported as 144,582(16/17) when in the previous year they were 145,771(17/18), this might well be understood as 'plateauing' consistent with outcomes in recent years. Demographically, these numbers represent something in the order of '1.5 people visits' for the region given that it is generally accepted that region's population is in the order of 100K people.

Given that the QVMAG's operation is being managed as a 'Cost Centre' the operational expectation is clearly antientrepreneurial. At some point it needs to be acknowledged that this means that too little value is being delivered to 'the community' relative to the community's investment over time and annually via the current operational budget.

In times of disruptive economic shifts and times where the changes that imprint themselves on 'cultural landscapes', on economies and upon new cultural realities, the repositioning of an operation's/business's/institution's modus operandi must be on the agenda. The apparent and increasingly unsustainable foundations of the status quo makes it an imperative to change – and with some resolve.