SUMMARY: QVMAG Governance & Management Submission

This submission is set against the background of the recent failures and weaknesses that have exposed themselves in the operation of the Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery (QVMAG). The malfunctions that led to the dismissal of the Museum’s Director are self-evident.

1. The concept that the QVMAG is “owned by Launceston City Council” (LCC) is debateable and contested.
2. It is held that there are known failures and weaknesses of governance at the QVMAG.
3. It is also held that the LCC has virtually abdicated it representational role in respect to the QVMAG and handed policy making to management.
4. 4. It is considered evident that the LCC has broken the chain of accountability in respect to the QVMAG.

The Immediate Situation: The LCC’s General Manager has embarked upon a hasty course of action that pays little if any attention to governance matters and is about to appoint a new Director:

1. Without there being a either a clear mission/purpose, goals or current Strategic Plan;
2. There cannot be a comprehensive Duty Statement for the Director to follow,and with further risks that;
3. The qualifications and the domain knowledge of those engaged in the recruitment process are not known;
4. and consequently invites the same failures of focus and accountability that occurred previously.

Against a background of recalcitrance by the elected Aldermen in addressing the QVMAG’s lack of clear mission/purpose and goals, management has no guidance to align future activities with community goals and aspirations. Given the failures that can be attributed to a similar course of action in the past this appears to be both inappropriate and imprudent – contrary to the LCC motto.

A Productive Way Forward: Since LCC presents as being unwilling to reform the QVMAG as an institution by addressing the weaknesses and failures in its governance, it would seem that there is a need to provide the Council with a stimulus to do so. This submission calls for the appointment of an independent Commissioner, or group of Commissioners, with appropriate domain knowledge. The Commissioner's role would be to oversee:

1. The ongoing short-term – 6 to 9 mths – operation of the QVMAG;
2. The preparation of a Strategic and a Marketing Plan for the QVMAG;
3. The preparation of an appropriate short term business cum enterprise plan including a determination of whether the museum can be operated as an income generation centre instead of the current ‘cost centre’ approach;
4. The auditing of the QVMAG’s operations and management structure;
5. The preparation of ongoing quality assurance benchmarks;
6. A consultation process with the Community of Ownership and Interest;
7. The recruitment of a standalone Board of Governors/Trustees;
8. The recruitment of a Director, or a Directorate, for the QVMAG;
9. The implementation of change management within the institution;
10. A review of the institutions funding mechanisms –Local, State, Federal Govt. plus other income generation options.

In short all the evidence points to there being a bureaucratic experiment in progress and one that flies in the face of recent experience. We submit that the appointment of a Commissioner/s as set out above seems to be the only way forward that shows any promise of an equitable outcome for the QVMAG’s current staff, ratepayers, taxpayers and the institution’s Community of Ownership and Interest.

Furthermore, we submit that the State Government has cause to review the level of recurrent funding for the QVMAG and call upon LCC to be truly accountable for the sound operation of the QVMAG.

SUBMISSION PART 2: The Immediate Situation

Taking into account recent press reports – by and large the only information flowing to LCC’s constituency and the institution’s COI – it seems that LCC’s General Manager has embarked upon a hasty course of action that pays little if any attention to governance matters and is about to appoint a new Director notwithstanding:
1. There is not a current and comprehensive five year Strategic Plan, and by implication no matching business/enterprise planning, in place;

2. And consequently, the scope of the position of Director is unable to be comprehensively described in her/his duty statement or the advertisement for the position.
3. And furthermore as a consequence of the above, there is ambiguity in regard to the qualifications and skills sets an applicant would need to possess to be considered for the position;
4. And additionally, the qualifications and the domain knowledge of those engaged in the recruitment and assessment process of applicants are equally ambiguous and there is no evidence that this is being suitably considered.This situation virtually mirrors the one that prevailed for the appointment of the previous Director. Aside from the alleged backdrop of his recent dismissal, on his strong urging, and presumably with the support of the then General Manager, reforms to governance were “put on hold” – “ Director's grand vision”, Examiner, Michael Lowe 13 Mar, 2007.

Albeit wise in hindsight, there is a case to be put that says:
1. With governance reforms, and the checks and balances that may well have come with them, the lamentable situation the QVMAG is now in might have been avoided;
2. The reforms might well have mitigated against the weaknesses and failures that are now evident; and
3. Indeed, the lack of the governance reforms may well have led to the recent demise of the Director.
To be on a similar course against this background, and in contradiction of sound management principles, seems imprudent if not foolhardy. Most importantly, the course that LCC is currently on, and the circumstances that surround it demonstrates that Council has virtually abandoned its governance role in regard to the QVMAG – the representation of and consultation with the constituency and the functional lack of accountability that is now evident.

Together these things seem to add up to LCC’s functional lack of accountability as the QVMAG’s governing body.

In turn this seems to have put in place the circumstances where the General Manager can act alone and without reference to either the Aldermen or the Museum’s Community of Ownership and Interest.

Given the failures that can be attributed to a similar course of action in the past this seems not only inappropriate but imprudent as well. Furthermore, it is lamentable that the LCC shows no hint of moving beyond the status quo notwithstanding the failures that are clearly visible – and are costing ratepayers and taxpayers dearly.

SUBMISSION Part 3: A Productive Way Forward

Since LCC presents as being unwilling to reform the QVMAG as an institution or address the weaknesses and failures that are now all too apparent in its governance and management it would seem that there is a need to provide the Council with a stimulus to do so.

Serendipitously, Auckland Museum is reported in the NZ Herald, by Brian Rudman on Friday Aug 20, 2010, as undergoing an upheaval that seems to contain all the elements evident in the QVMAG’s current crisis. Rudman reports that in New Zealand there has been a call to appoint a Commissioner to bring the Auckland Museum under the control of an appropriate governance and management process.

Given the circumstances now prevailing in Launceston we submit that the appointment of an independent Commissioner, or group of Commissioners, to break the impasse at LCC in respect to the QVMAG’s governance and management has many attractions. Not the least being the recognition of the fact that such institutions need sound and accountable governance and management regimes. We envisage the Commissioner’s brief as being the oversighting of:

1. The short term – 6 to 9 mths? – ongoing operation of the QVMAG;

2. The preparation of a five year Strategic and Marketing Plan for the QVMAG;

3. Consistent with that, the preparation of appropriate short term business cum enterprise plans for the operation and its programs;

4. Consistent with that, the auditing of the QVMAG operation, management structure and policy sets;

5. Consistent with that, the preparation of ongoing quality assurance benchmarks for the institution;

6. A consultation process that actively engages with the QVMAG’s Community of Ownership and Interest and that feeds into the above tasks;

7. The development of recommendations on an appropriate governance model with a view to putting in place a stand alone arms length Board of Governors/Trustees for the QVMAG;

8. The recruitment of a Director, or a Directorate, for the QVMAG with the capabilities and capacities to deliver on the QVMAG’s quality assurance regimes; and the implementation of

9. Change management within the institution to ensure a smooth transition to the reformed governance and management paradigm.

10. A review of the institutions funding mechanisms – Local, State, Federal Govt. plus other

The course that LCC is currently embarked upon seems to be based upon a flawed and previously failed concept that further entrenches the QVMAG in a paradigm where there is a lack of functional accountability.

In short all the evidence points to there being a bureaucratic experiment in progress. Furthermore, it is one that flies in the face of recent experience. Apart from the anecdotal evidence that the QVMAG is an unsafe workplace, there is far too much at risk not to challenge this kind of experimentation.

Alarmingly, the QVMAG’s Community of Ownership and Interest is being left out of the considerations currently being acted upon. Given that:

1. There is $230 plus million of Tasmanian’s cultural property, plus others’ intellectual property, invested in the QVMAG’s collections;
2. The QVMAG’s annual recurrent budget is in the order of $5 million;
3. Launceston’s ratepayers collectively contribute well over $3 million to the QVMAG’s annual recurrent budget;
4. Tasmania’s taxpayers contribute a million dollars plus to the annual recurrent budget;
For the calendar year 2010 $10 million taxpayer and ratepayer funding is being expended on infrastructure for the QVMAG; and
5. There has been a need to dismiss the Director – there are inherent costs involved in this not to mention the lost opportunities flowing from the action.

Given all this there is a strong case to be put that there is a need to intervene to protect Tasmanians’ investment in both the institution and its collections.

We submit that the appointment of a Commissioner/s as set out above seems to be the only way forward that shows any promise of an equitable outcome for the QVMAG’s current staff, ratepayers, taxpayers and the institution’s Community of Ownership and Interest. Furthermore, we submit that the State Government has cause to review the level of recurrent funding for the QVMAG and call upon LCC to be truly accountable for the sound operation of the QVMAG.

Background Links