THE REPORT IN CONTEXT
This report needs to be read in context in so much as its meaning is invested in its context. Notably, it is presented halfway through the year beyond its time frame and in a 21st C context this represents nothing less than an accountability shortfall.
Why? Well, given that in the corporate world, and government funding agencies in general, diligent boards would/should be demanding this level of rigorous reporting within weeks of the closure of the fiscal period whenever that happens to fall.
At the outset, it needs to be said that this report's significance is mostly to do with what it does not illuminate rather than what it might or does. Accountability and transparency here are the victims of the report's inadequacies.
Arguably, this report needed to be in the hands of the institutions 'fiscal supporters', and sponsors/donors, by the end of August. Why wasn't it?
That said, it is noteworthy that throughout the year the institution has been extremely spare in reporting to its governing body – City of Launceston Council (COL). That the council – the institution's Trustees by default – do not appear to be demanding appropriate reporting in accord with due diligence consistent with the expenditure of 'public monies' is concerning to say the least. This serves Launceston's ratepayer, Tasmania's taxpayers and QVMAG sponsors/donors rather poorly. In fact it is difficult to understand just why the Tasmanian government tolerates the paucity of the CoL's reporting.
Indeed, there is speculation in the community emanating from 'reliable sources' that suggest that CoL management is entertaining the notion that the 'State Govt' will ultimately fund the QVMAG by an additional $3M. There is good backgrounding for such speculation albeit a while ago – see this 2014 link . If the institution were to operate in accord with appropriate accountability there may well be a case for additional State Govt. funding.
It would be a bridge too far to suggest that report might be sufficient to encourage the State Govt would/could find due cause to contemplate such a shift in funding.
However, if you read this annual report looking for rigorous accountability you will be hard pressed to muster the evidence that would support the institution maintaining its present level of State funding. So, doubling/trebling/quadrupling would seem a fanciful pipe dream. That is unless some 'political imperative' came into play. Currently that would appear to be highly unlikely.
The rigour in this report is by-and-large to found in diligence applied to its 'blanding' and the 'sugar-coating' that is all too often found in managerial reporting. It claims to meet its obligations under the Local Govt. Act 1993. So, long as 'governance' – State and/or Council – does not challenges its assertions it may well pass.
Nonetheless, Launceston's ratepayers are 'conscripted investors' and some to the extent that something order of 10% of their rate demand goes to the QVMAG's recurrent budget. These 'investors' have a right to a dividend – cultural dividend, social dividend, economic dividend, none of which will directly appear on their banking records.
The shortfalls in this report are non-trivial and given the institution's dependence upon 'the public purse', and for an annual recurrent budget in the of $7M, it is more than reasonable to expect the highest reporting standards. SEE FISCAL NOTES HERE
CORPORATE STRUCTURE
.
Essentially this report is silent on the issue of its 'corporate entity' and structure in the context of governance. It does however offer a somewhat misleading overview of its 'corporate governance' that is concerning in so much as this is a demonstration of the institution's poor understanding of itself and to whom it is. and should be, accountable to in fact.
Why misleading? Firstly none of the entities characterised as being components of the institution's "corporate governance" are in indeed that. Why? None have any capacity to 'determine' policy or strategic directions beyond their own operation. Influence such things yes but not determine QVMAG policies and strategies as that role falls to the City of Launceston's Councillors/Trustees – albeit trustees by default.
Indeed, the report does not identify a place for a 'governance body' in its corporate governance and by extension this indicates that 'management' has adopted for itself the function of governance.
Here it is worth quoting Mervyn King who said “Good corporate governance is about 'intellectual honesty' and not just sticking to rules and regulations, capital [flows] towards companies [and corporate entities] that [practice] this type of good governance.“
The Aboriginal Reference Group (ARG) was established specifically to provide advice on matters relative to Aboriginal cultural sensitivities and imperatives. ARG's formation was timely and way past the time of necessity to formally garner such advice. The group's 'advice' should be respected but in the final analysis ARG is not a policy or strategy determiner by definition. While it should inform governance it is not itself a governance instrument.
The QVMAG Arts Foundation is a standalone entity purposed to raise funds for the institution and primarily towards acquisitions. It does not determine QVMAG policy and strategic directions other than for the foundation itself. The foundation's contribution is significant but its role is other than 'governance'.
The QVMAG Friends again is a standalone organisation that by-and-large functions as support/auxiliary entity. Again, 'the Friends' do not determine policy or strategic directions albeit that indirectly the 'organisation' may influence such decision making.
Somewhat alarmingly the report does not acknowledge the QVMAG Advisory Committee established by Launceston City Council as a special committee under section 24 of the Local Government Act 1993. Essentially this 'expert committee's' role is to provide advice to the QVMAG Director and likewise, provide advice and reports to Council on policy and strategic directions.
In the absence of a stand alone expert 'board of trustees/governors' the indication here is that this committee has been sidelined and that management has become further blurred with governance.
Indeed, the indication is that the management and governance roles have been 'amalgamated' rendering the operation functionally only accountable itself.
Here there are alarming implications relative to accountability not to mention the institution's purposefulness. The case for the institution being 'functionally unaccountable' becomes increasingly compelling. This omission is non-trivial!
It is not within the scope of this response to discuss at length the need for there to be clear delineation between the functions of governance and management. Nonetheless, it is clear that 'best practice' makes such delineation mandatory in order to achieve transparent and accountable leadership – especially so in regard to the expenditure of public monies.
Transparency mitigates against corruption. Likewise, good governance exceeds transparency via the achievement of openness. Openness means involving an operation's constituency in decision-making processes – especially so when there is meaningful engagement.
Transparency is the right to information while openness is the right to participation and it would appear that quite deliberately the QVMAG's constituency is kept at arm's length while in the case of ratepayers they are conscripted investors.
 |
| CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO ENLARGE |
MONEY MATTERS
For an operation that depends almost entirely upon the 'public purse' the report's lack of detail is more than concerning. The apparent notion that the institution's 'funders' do not need to know in more detail just how their financial contributions have been spent is a nonsense.
Indeed, the paucity of detail here is, apparently, consistent with the level of information provided to the Councillors/Trustees. That is, when any information is reported at all on the record. Council agendas have a longstanding absence of information and there being "nothing" to report"on the agenda. It is a matter of record and legendary.
This has become something of sick joke that over time and for whatever reason 'the Trustees' have demonstrated both disinterest and their more than willingness to abdicate the trust invested in them and hand decision making to 'management'. This is inappropriate at best and in the end, delinquent.
Given the capacity 'digital technologies' have for tedious detail there is no excuse for more comprehensive fiscal detail being available. It should no longer be discretionary that those with whom 'trust' is invested to stand aside and press the 'set and forget button'.
At the very minimum the institution's 'governors' should be provided with access to line item budget reporting – and in an ongoing basis. By extension, funding agencies, rate and tax payers, sponsors and donors should also have access to this level budget detail to facilitate and inform future decisions.
Anything less represents discretionary accountability and here we are talking about something over $7Million of expenditure being drawn from the public purse.
The fiscal reporting in the report is a demonstration of the lack of transparency and accountability that seemingly purveys the institution, root and branch – and it is concerning that it be so with unknown consequences.
It is more than clear that it well past time that the QVMAG should be allowed to operate without standalone accountable and 'expert' governance. The risk involved in more and more of the same should not be given the slightest consideration. Yet seemingly it is.
With it being evident that the QVMAG collections might well be leaking the institution's constituency should be more alarmed than they are giving voice to.
The report tells us some bald facts in that the QVMAG received:
- $1.451M 'OPERATIONS GRANT' from the Tas Govt.
- Generated $572K in income via fees and charges
- Received $28K via various unspecified grants Received $207K in bequests and donations
- Received $43K via other unspecified income ; and
- Has an operating budget in the order of $7Million
Moreover, the institution holds in its collections cultural material with an estimated value of $237Million plus that is held in TRUST – the cultural property of Tasmanians, indeed Australians and is an important component of the national estate.
However, all this is well known and old news and it is only worth repeating as a demonstration of the operation's unquestioned 'Cost Centre' status. The assumption here being that "survival is the equivalent to success".
This demonstrates that the fiscal status of the QVMAG in non-trivial and the persistence of the status quo is untenable. In addition, it is timely that tax and ratepayers received the socioal, cultural and economic dividends due to them.
THE QUESTION OF ADEQUACY
The report tells us too little and assumes too much. Like once upon a time there was a list of 'everybody' that had been on staff, or in some way engaged with, the institution. Along with this their qualifications and/or experience was listed.
Nowadays this information is often on an institution's website. Where it is, it is simple matter to take a snapshot at the close of a reporting period for the record and to assist future researchers in all kinds of ways.
The 'MEET US' component of the report, while interesting and informative, it does not serve this purpose and especially not in regard to accountability and transparency.
Public museums, and indeed art galleries, are, or should be, research organisations/operations. When this information is not available it raises all kinds of uncomfortable questions. All too often it closes down lines of investigation as well. Providing this class of information should in no way whatsoever compromise an individual's privacy.
Why might anyone engaged with an institution such as a museum wish to withhold such information? Why might they not want their professional qualifications known? Moreover, ranking some staff as being more important than others is not too dissimilar to sexism or ageism – it is arrogant rankism. Indeed, guides very often turn out to be interesting artists, collectors and even more still who for all kinds of reasons find themselves employed in the 'rank and file',
Likewise, the reporting on loans, outward and inward, is scant whereas it should/could be more complete given the research significance of such information. The missing Whiteley $30K drawing should have alerted a serious collection manager to the need for this class of rigorous record keeping. Indeed this discovery raises serious questions to do with the security of the collections along other speculations to do with surreptitious 'deaccessions'.
Moreover, in a 'publicly funded' institution, this class of record keeping should be an imperative.
It may well be the case that the institution did not win any 'project grant funding', or corporate/private project funding, but if it did it needs to be fully reported and made available to the public – especially so in a research context. If it didn't and it was reported, the institution's governance might well be moved to act upon the information in some way.
Somewhat concerningly the report casts the institution in a mould of it being the purveyor of 19th cum 20th C passive presentations. Participatory experiences do not appear to be on the agenda. Essentially this is the role of 'theme parks' albeit that 'museums', musingplaces, have elements of such places.
21st C 'musingplaces' are becoming increasingly dynamic and participatory even if it is at the chagrin of the curatorialy stuffy who are aiming to maintain the status quo against the flo0w of the tide .
Typically annual reports are self assessments of performance relative to 'strategic plans'. When such a plan does not articulate a 'purpose', a 'mission' yes, how can performance be measured relative to purpose?
Purposelessness affords the luxury of discretionary accountability and self-serving bureaucratic opacity masquerading as 'confidentiality' for all manner reasons.
For instance, arguably 'research' is paid lip service yet it seems that no such thing gets a place in the institutional imagination. Searching and counting yes, but 'research'?
The 'ins and outs' and 'right and wrongs' is ever likely to be contention filled but it is a wrangle worth having given what constituents have invested in the institution.
What is lamentable here is that there is so, so much research work that needs to be done and for whatever reason nothing seems to be in play.
Thanking "the Council" for its support of the QVMAG is a demonstration of the level of folly that is being entertained. Ratepayer invest in the institution, some to the extent of 10% of their rate demand. They deserve a dividend (social, cultural, economic ) and it seems this is not being comprehended or contemplated.
The apparent abdication and disregard of Councillors in their 'QVMAG Trustee role" might be convenient but in the end too much is invested in the institution to continue to tolerate the status quo while those trusted with community assets and 'story-telling' just look away and claim oblivion to their actual role.
 |
| CLICK ON IMAGE TO ENLARGE |
There must be change and 'reportedly' over some years external advice has been sought, and paid for – and by all accounts these 'expert consultants' have been paid quite handsomely. This 2018/19 report is produced to meet an 'obligation' and it turns out that it fails the accountability test in so many regards. As before it is notable for what the report omits, it's unwillingness to 'rock the boat', its self indulgence and its propensity to engage in a bureaucratic smoothing over exercise.
Worryingly it seems to paint a picture of an 'Ivory Tower' operating in isolation and by-and-large insulating itself from its Community of Ownership & Interest.
