.
Lost, has been any bureaucratic comprehension of the institution’s ‘purpose’ shrouded as it has become with bureaucratic flummery and serf-serving deeming. Rudderless, as the institution becomes when it falls under the control of a 'management regime' that fails to recognise its own inadequacies. Conveniently and bureaucratically it has, and continues to, inappropriately, bland down and blend the functions of ‘governance and management’.
Effectively, the institution has been allowed by it ‘default trustees’ cum governors – Launceston’s Councillors’ – to be reconfigured as a ‘kind of theme park like entity’ well away from its original ‘purposefulness’ laid down 130 years ago when the Royal Society of Tasmania – essentially and fundamentally as a research institute – was the the 'foundation stone' upon which the institution was founded.
Arguably, the funding provided annually for the institution’s/operation’s recurrent budget has increasingly been misappropriated and basically at the whim of ‘council managements’ empire building – funded by the public purse and primarily from the city’s ratepayers via their rates and subsidised to a lesser extent by the State Govt. The institution also from time to time benefits from private donations and sponsorships plus in-kind research funding from various research organisations.
Arguably, even with its current level of funding, the institution should be delivering higher levels of outcomes. However, effectively it lacks a ‘purposeful’ strategic plan so to do and against which its ‘performance level’ can be measured, funded and thus held to account – by ratepayers, State Govt, donors, sponsors, et al.
Why is this happening? Firstly, taxpayers and ratepayers, are less and less able to hold ‘public service bureaucracies’ accountable protected as they are, and need to be, from politically driven operational interference.
Nonetheless, there comes a point where operational dysfunctionalism and the ‘purposelessness’ of an operation needs to be held to account by whatever means available. When the lion’s share of the funding comes from the ‘public purse’ public accountability should be an imperative.
In a hard-headed corporate environment, any operation that becomes as ‘purposeless and dysfunctional’ as the QVMAG arguably has on the evidence, would/should face ‘disbandment or restructure’ via any one of a variety of mechanisms.
Strategy should evolve out of the cut and thrust of 'purposeful endeavour', not in the antiseptic and rarefied environment of an ivory tower. While 'management' might advise on policy development and strategic positioning it is not its legitimate function to determine these things.
By a fate of history, the QVMAG’s ‘ownership’ was passed to Launceston Council rather than the State Government or a standalone trust or like not-for-profit corporate entity.
The foundation stone for the original building to house the 'Victoria Museum and Art Gallery' was laid by the Mayor of Launceston, Robert Carter, on 21 June 1887. Alexander Morton, of the museum in Hobart, acted as honorary curator from its opening in 1891 until 1896, with Herbert Hedley Scott assuming the role of curator in May 1897.
In 1926 the Launceston City Council amended the name to 'Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery' to avoid confusion with the state of Victoria. In their colonial context, The Mechanics Institute, Tasmanian Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge – Launceston, 1831 – and the Tasmanian Royal Society laid down the ‘cultural foundations’ for the QVMAG – a purposeful education and research foundation.
Collectively, these institutions in their 19th cum early 20th Century cultural context had, and had earned, the social license to do as they did and the outcome was what it was, and a reflection of the cultural sensibilities of the times.
In a ‘21st Century context’ the original purposefulness may remain but it is just the case that there has been a paradigm shift along with fundamental disruptions relative to the criteria and ‘yardsticks’ by which outcomes, say with the Royal Society’s purpose in mind, the performance might be independently measured, evaluated and assessed.
Arguably, 19th Century performance measures do not match 21st Century aspirations and needs. Somewhat poignantly Prof. Brian Schmidt, the Australian Nation University's Vice Chancellor and Nobel Laureate, drew attention to the fact that universities, and by extension museums, post 1980 were no longer functionally the curators of and the keepers of 'knowledge'.
Despite this poignant acknowledgement, the QVMAG's management currently entertains the 19th/20th Century delusion, demonstrated by its actions, that as a museum it is a 'keeper of knowledge' while nothing could be less the case.
 |
| LINK |
In the context of local governance, unlike most regional museums and art galleries, Launceston’s Council through time has never provided the QVMAG with anything like a standalone, arm’s length, Board of Trustees – a governing body as distinct from a ‘management structure’.
Elsewhere, local governments fund cultural institutions and typically such institutions/organisations are 'owned and operated' by a standalone not-for-profit corporate entity – company, trust, incorporated entity et al. Accordingly, 'government' – local, state and federal – funds cultural institutions on performance and in accord with governance's priorities, policies and strategic directions.
Likewise, the ‘governing bodies’ of standalone organisations are typically populated with people with ‘domain knowledge and expertise’ . They need to be in order that they can determine adequate and appropriate policies and thus establish strategic directions that fit the operations 'purpose' and thus they win their funding in open competition with all comers. This is not the case with the QVMAG and its 'competitive advantage' is self asserted and is largely untested.
While standalone operations' ‘management’ is charged with implementing policies, any requirement for ‘domain knowledge’ is an ideal rather than a fundamental requirement. 'Managerialism', asserts that a manager's 'domain knowledge' is to do with management – not by necessity to do with the operation's 'purpose'.
By extension, this can be taken to say that a manager of whatever background, has the expertise in 'management' to manage any class of operation – for example a sewerage farm's manager automatically has all the domain knowledge required to manage a health service, an education operation and so on, and so on.
Currently, and increasingly for well over a decade, the City of Launceston Council functionally devolves its ‘museum governance role’ to management who in turn demonstrably lack the ‘cultural knowledge and social license’ as indeed in much the same way do the ‘councillors’ – elected as they are to govern and plan a municipality not to govern a ‘cultural research institution’. That's the theory albeit not always applied in practice.
Clearly, the City of Launceston’s ‘councillors’ have by-and-large abdicated their ‘QVMAG governance role’. Largely this is to do with their self-recognised lack of ‘domain knowledge’, relevant research expertise and their dilettante status. This has happened somewhat by stealth and subliminally over time and in most recent years there has been a discernible acceleration.
While this may be the case, nonetheless some councillors over time, due to their dilettantism, have entertained the notion that they have the ‘authority and social license’ to do whatever they have done in regard to the QVMAG – appropriately and otherwise. Election to high office does not ever translate into 'expertise' in anything beyond the capacity to win votes. In local government in Tasmania where voting in local government elections is discretionary and consequently:
- Some 47 thousand people are eligible to vote;
- Some 24 thousand people actually voted; and
- A significant proportion of elected representatives hold their seats on council with fewer than a thousand votes – some with less than 500; and
- This is much more like a game of chance, a rigged lottery, than representational governance.
A wise man somewhere alerted us to the folly of dilettantism and the decision making that tends to go with it. He likened it to, choosing to do something without any idea of what you're looking for – or at. He tells us that it is rather like mindlessly running through a gunpowder factory with a burning match. It is possible to live through it, but for all time, and in every way, you're still an idiot – and you’re destined to remain so and go down in history for the idiot that you really are.
Typically, and inevitably, in the aftermath of 'dilettante folly' there are the unintended consequences which in turn are almost always to some extent dire – and people get hurt.
In the context of 'State governance', in stark contrast to local governance, Tasmania’s State Government acknowledges the fact that Westminster democratic governance does not automatically provide ‘representational governance’ with members who have all the time, expertise and domain knowledge to internally, from the government, ‘people’ institutions such as universities, hospitals, schools, research institutions, public art galleries or museums with people with the appropriate and required skills and experiences.
In every case, ‘government’ ensures the appointment of appropriate governing bodies ‘peopled’ by personnel with the relevant domain knowledge and expertise. However, Westminster governance has very often provided ‘governance’ with lawyers capable of framing legislation and able to oversight Attorney General Departments. Nonetheless, governance is a great deal more than law writing.
- Establish a Board of Trustees for the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery (TMAG) – owned by the State Govt; and
- Empowers the TMAG trustees with power and authority, with the consent of the Governor, to make all such by-laws, rules, and orders touching and concerning the management and ‘good government’ of the Tasmanian Museum, and the income and property thereof, or any other matter or thing relative to the same, as to them may seem fit for the effectual attainment of the objects of a museum.
With the consent of the Governor, the government via its ‘Governor and Council mechanism’, it appoints, or dismisses, the institution’s trustees in accord with delivering on the institution’s 'purpose'.
Importantly, the trustees secure, and are empowered to secure, additional funding for:
- Collection development;
- Research; and/or
- Program delivery;
The RST's priorities and objectives are:
- Promoting Tasmanian historical, scientific and technological knowledge for the benefit of Tasmanians;
- Fostering Tasmanian public engagement and participation in the quest for objective knowledge;
- Recognising excellence in academia and supporting Tasmanian academic excellence, and
- Providing objective advice for policy relating to Tasmanian issues.
THE INSTITUTION'S OVERVIEW 2021
 |
| LINK |
Realistically, the institution has been reconfigured into a mere shadow of its former itself and to the point where it shares most of the attributes of a broken down and 'clapped out' thoroughbred. No longer able to cut it on the racetrack, it is a 'hayburner' – way too expensive to own – and just so much horse meat – well unicorn meat as it might sell for more. As the adage goes, a philistine provides the best definition of art – anything that's beyond comprehension must be first class but nonetheless surplus to requirement.
 |
| LINK |
Anecdotally, it is reported that the institution has disbanded it's preparatory workshop along with its conservation unit. Both these units in the past have been income generative aside from the important enabling services they provided. After that the 'science component' of collection management is reported to have been unthinkingly stripped bare.
There has been quite a lot of unthinking going on and it seems that Douglas Adams' 'Deep Thought' needs to be dusted off and payed attention to. As it has been forever, we need to know what questions to ask in order to discover 'the answer'.
 |
| LINK |
In the 20th C the 'typical' museum and/or art gallery in the imagination of the colonised and colonising world was an institution steeped in romantic visions of the classics, empire and hegemonic belief systems – albeit increasingly reflective visions as the century drew to a close. Overlaid on this came the celebration of the industrial era that was fueled by the socioeconomic Industrial Revolution that in turn fueled European expansionism and ultimately globalism.
In one way or another the collections held in museums in the Western world were/are essentially 'plunder' of one kind or another that reflected 18th and 19th Century imperatives. The British Museum would be one exemplar that has set down some of the key museum protocols and practices that linger in current museology. However, by the last two decades of the century the world that museum’s were attempting to make sense of was changing at a pace unimaginable in the times, and the cultural dynamics, that shaped museums and museology practices.
In the 21st C comfortable reflections of the past no longer go unchallenged and especially so in public museums that rely on public funding to maintain their programs. There are newer sets of expectations in respect to accountability. Indeed, museology itself is increasingly of interest to researchers and once tight divides between disciplines are blurring increasingly. Against this background Communities of Ownership and Interest are looking to:
- Engage with museums’ leadership and management;
- Be actively and haptically participating in the musing;
- NOT be passive receivers of massaged handed down 'wisdoms';
- Museums as a source ot, and generator of, critically important data;
- The institution’s set of goals as a measure of its relevance to contemporary social and cultural realities;
- Drive museums’ programs toward strategic alliances and financial success via 'Citizen Curatorships'
"Museums are unique institutions with the potential both to develop and to explain new knowledge and its significance to the general public. By engaging society in a guided conversation about their world, museums can learn about the societal context of their knowledge. Museums have the potential to participate in shaping our collective futures by bringing their research, exhibition programming, and heritage collections together with society’s interests into integrated programs. In the face of a rapidly growing need to examine environmental, cultural, and socio-economic problems, people are turning to institutions or sources that will address global problems at local levels." Leading Museums into the Future .... read more here
In the case of museums auspiced by local government in Tasmania the Local Government Act 1993 provides for:
(1) A council may establish a controlling authority with the following functions:
(a) to carry out any scheme, work or undertaking on behalf of the council;
(b) to manage or administer any property or facilities on behalf of the council;
(c) to provide facilities or services on behalf of the council;
(d) to carry out any other functions on behalf of the council."
.... read more here
WHERE TO NOW?
Down at the epicentre of power in Launceston, its Town Hall, apparently the GM/CEO has an idea but he is keeping shtum as the Local Govt Act 1993's SECTION 62/2 allows. There has been no urge to take his constituents, or the QVMAG's Community of Ownership & Interest, into his confidence. Moreover, he has sworn the councillors to secrecy while he demands that 3OK ratepayers pay up – albeit via a secret levy – to fund whatever he has on his mind. Curiously, there is no mention of rates funding the lion's share of the QVMAG recurrent budget – the State Govt. subsidises the operation.
Interestingly, Burnie's council and then Hobart's have taken a good look at their 'cultural spends'. In Hobart the decision has been made that essentially goes, 'council does not need to own a festival and its has grown beyond ratepayers' capacity to pay'. It's a 'strategic decision' made by the council, sold to the ratepayers' by the mayor and now everyone is starting to move forward – full marks.
Burnie has done pretty much the same and its council is moving strategically with ratepayers' in mind –read more here.
Since down at, or is it up to, Town Hall the subliminal imperative seems to be advocate change but make sure that the bureaucratic empire keeps on growing.
THE OWNERSHIP CONUNDRUM
The ownership of all 'cultural material' in the collections of all public musingplaces:
• Must remain with the institution's Community of Ownership & Interest's (COI) ownership in both 'lore and law' – the communities/people who have cultural capital, cultural property and intellectual property invested in the collections and the material held in them;.
• Need to be managed by an 'expert and accountable agency' that ensures its security and safe maintenance;
• Need to be 'governed strategically' by an standalone 'agency' accountable to representational government and thus the Community of Ownership & Interest – and in Tasmania that needs to be State Govt. rather than Local Govt given the population base and:
- The complexities emanating out of the diversity of the material cultural material held – fossils to ephemeral artworks etc; and'
- The automatic lack of expertise/experience and domain knowledge of 'elected representatives' to directly and strategically govern complex collections on behalf of their constituencies .
In Tasmania, the Tasmanian Museum & Art Gallery (TMAG) is owned by the State Govt and 'functional governance' has been devolved to a standalone 'accountable expert governing agency', the TMAG Board of Trustees, who appoint a management to manage and operate the institution.
In Launceston, the Queen Victoria Museum & Art Gallery (QVMAG) is owned by the city of Launceston's Council and 'functional governance' has not been devolved to a standalone 'accountable expert governing agency'. Council's 'in-house management', appoints a management to manage and operate the institution. The missing element is the 'expert governance' of the institution. Consequent to that 'the operation functions as cost centre' and is constrained by the conflicting purposes of 'museum management functions' and 'civic management imperatives' and one being dominated and arguably overpowered by the other.
Certainly, entrepreneurial activity is neither encouraged nor appropriately facilitated within the imperatives of civic service provisioning – the roads, rates and rubbish paradigm. Nonetheless, Australia wide, there are understandings that cultural activities should be facilitated by local government and various percentages of budgets have be set aside for such purposes. Likewise, the Federal Govt. and State Govt's budget similarly provide for 'cultural funding' as do other agencies and some corporations.
Nevertheless, there are some alternatives and three options are canvassed below:
