TITLE: Public Questions on Notice - Mr Ray Norman - 24 March 2022 FILE NO: SF6381 AUTHOR: Anthea Rooney (Council and Committees Officer) CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER: Michael Stretton
NB: The questions were put to the Mayor and ALL Councillors the 'governors/default trustees' and answered by 'management'.
QUESTIONS and RESPONSES: The following questions, submitted to the Council in writing on 24 March 2022 by Mr Ray Norman, have been answered by Mr Michael Stretton (Chief Executive Officer).
Questions:
1. … Is it still the case that as the default trustee responsible for Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery (QVMAG) that you have custody over a collection of cultural assets with an estimated replacement value of $2.4b that includes priceless scientific specimens, the cultural and intellectual property of cultural producers living and deceased?
Response: The Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery (QVMG) collection is currently valued at $203.6m and is the responsibility of the City of Launceston to manage.
My response … The DOLLARvalue is almost irrelevant and while it might be the case that the City of Launceston (CoL) has the “responsibility to manager” the QVMAG, ownership and the ‘governance’ of the QVMAG as an institution/operation rests with the elected Councillors and consequently ‘management’ is accountable to Council’s constituency via their elected representatives. The quite different roles of ‘governance’ and ‘management’ must not be confused or functionally blended as appears to be the situation described here.
2. …Is it still the case that deaccessioning and otherwise disposing of cultural and historic material goes on without direct Council/Trustee oversight and approval? If not where can the records be found? If so, why so?
Response: The Council is not, and has not, been established as Trustees of the QVMAG acquisition/deaccession procedure. Itemised accounts of annual actions pertaining to QVMAG acquisition/deaccession are published in QVMAG Annual
Reports.
My response … The GM/CEO appears to be confused about his function and role as a MANAGER given that the ‘ELECTED COUNCILLORS’ are the QVMAG’s governing body, the institution’s policy determiners and thus functionally the ‘custodians of’ the QVMAG’s Collections, and thus, by default, the collections’ ‘trustees’. The CORPORATE GOLD STANDARD here is that management cannot be self-serving, self-accrediting or self-accountable. On the evidence here the GM/CEO seems to be asserting the case that QVMAG management is all these things and provides no evidence that the QVMAG’s GOVERNOR, CoL, have delegated/devolved ‘governance’ to ‘management in any machination’ and thus his response here is problematic and requires testing in respect to accountability.
3. … Is it still the case that the raising of funds for the QVMAG’s recurrent expenditures is via taxing ratepayers thus ensuring that expenditure and capital expenditures are secured and uncompetitively without key performance indicators (KPIs) being used to assess competitively against appropriate performance outcomes and in competition with other legitimate demands on the Council’s budget?
Response: No this is not the case. The operations of the QVMAG are the subject of ongoing assessment and review against various benchmarks and KPIs that have been established.
My response … The GM/CEO appears to be avoiding the substance of the question in that the QVMAG’s RECURRENT BUDGET is funded by the municipality’s ratepayers via their rates (AKA a tax) and an annual ‘grant’ from the Tasmanian Govt the raisers and recipients of ‘taxed moneys’. These funds are drawn from the ‘PUBLIC PURSE’ and deposited in it by tax and ratepayers. Moreover, here the KPI that have been “established” along with the performance reports are NOT articulated and are apparently unavailable to those who contribute the funds … THE PUBLIC.
4. … Is it still the case that in broad terms, the QVMAG’s annual recurrent and anticipated expenditure is something in the order of $7m per annum without an effective and independent critical oversight of such expenditure in ways that compare like institutions elsewhere? Furthermore, how is this level expenditure accounted for on a monthly and/or quarterly basis? Also, where can such information be accessed?
Response: This has never been the case. The Council has a budget and annual plan each year of around $115m and the Councillors provide oversight through means such as the consideration and approval of the various plan and budgets and also through the consideration quarterly reports to Council outlining performance. This includes the operations of the QVMAG. This information can be gained in Council Meeting
My response … The GM/CEO appears to be avoiding the substance of the question given that the $7Million has in a rounded out context has been drawn from successive QVMAG Annual Reports and IF this information is available it is not consistently or reliably so as a survey of Council Agenda during his tenure would surely reveal.
5. … Is it still the case that Tasmanian Minister for the Art’s has provided the Council with KPIs that must/should met in order that the Council might receive ongoing recurrent grant monies? If so, where can the Council's constituents access this information? Furthermore, is the Council and the QVMAG meeting these KPIs and where is that information available for public scrutiny?
Response: There are a set of KPIs that have been included in the annual Funding Agreements between the State Government and the Council for the operations of KPIs. These KPIs have been complied with.
My response … Yet again. the GM/CEO appears to be avoiding the substance of the question. The Minister has personally advised me that she has provided KPIs for future funding and thus they are known to exist. However, without access to the KPIs in the light of Council’s assertion that they have been complied with the GM/CEO’s assertion here has no substance whatsoever.
6. …Is it the case that the Council provides funding to the QVMAG and apparently without KPIs, that must/should met by the operation and its staff in order that the Council might measure outcomes against appropriate expectations in competition with other budget allocations. Furthermore, if such KPIs exist, where can a record of them be obtained?
Response: Refer previous response.
My response … Yet again. the GM/CEO appears to be avoiding the issue and IF there are KPI for the QVMAG and they are being met there is absolutely no reason for them to be DEEMED confidential.
7. … Is it the case that you, as Councillors/Trustees/Custodians, of significant cultural assets and the operation of cultural institution you are comfortable with the level of QVMAG’s governance provided by yourselves and consequently your accountability to constituents, donors, sponsors, the research community and the funding agencies, institutions and trusts that fund QVMAG activities?
Response: This is really a question that can only be answered by each individual Councillor. However, as an overarching statement and as previously outlined, the Council applies oversight to the operations of the QVMAG through means such as the consideration and approval of the various plans and budgets, but also through the consideration of quarterly reports to Council outlining performance.
My response: Yes it is absolutely the case that the elected COUCILLORS answer ALL the questions here given that they were addressed to them and the GM/CEO has taken it upon himself to answer for them and clearly without any reference to them at all. While it is possible that the elected COUNCILLORS find themselves ill equipped to answer the GM/CEO, on the available evidence lacks the ‘expertise’ required under SECTION 65 of the Local Govt, Act.
8. … Is it the case that you, as Councillors/Trustees/Custodians (recent and past Councils), oversighted a situation that has deteriorated incrementally to the extent that in order to protect all that is now invested and that has been invested, in the QVMAG for over 130 years indicates that you now need to take urgent action to protect these iconic Tasmanian cultural assets and institution?
Response: No, this is not the case.
My response … Again the GM/CEO is answering on behalf of QVMAG’s ‘governors/trustees/custodians without reference to them apparently unless in OPEN COUNCIL they have delegated authority to do so. No evidence of that has been either offered or provided.
9. … Given that it appears that the QVMAG as an institution has not been presented a performance review of any kind since the 2021 Annual General Meeting when does the Council expect to be able to:
• report on comparative attendance levels for the past 18 months and the metrics relative to cost of a visitation to the QVMAG’s campuses;
• report on current staffing levels, effective full time and casual and its skills base;
• report on the current status of the QVMAG collections audit;
• report on programming and future planning relative to the institution’s purpose for being;
• report on the operations research outcome and consequent publications;
• report on acquisitions, gifts, donations and any proposed, deaccessions or proposed asset disposals;
• report on any awards, grants received or gifts received by the QVMAG of individual staff members?
Response: It is not the case that the QVMAQ has not reported to the Council since the 2021 Annual General Meeting. The Council has been developing a Future Direction Plan for the QVMAG for some time and has been in liaison with the State Government in this process. This will be formally considered by Council in the near future. However, it is noted that much of the information that has been cited in the question is operational in nature which is managed by the General Manager Creative Arts and Culture.
My response … Again the GM/CEO is answering on behalf of QVMAG’s ‘governors/trustees/custodians without reference to them. In this case the question went to requesting evidence of a performance review ON THE PUBLIC RECORD. While Councillors may have received reporting of some kind there is no apparent evidence that it has been made available on THE PUBLIC RECORD as would be best practice.
10. … Do you as Councillors and the default Trustees, the QVMAG’s governing body, believe that you are fully accountable, indeed appropriately accountable, for the expenditure of monies levied from ratepayers, drawn from the public purse and the donations to the institution by benefactors of various kind providing cash, in-kind support and not to mention important cultural assets to be held in trust?
Response: Yes. Refer previous responses.
My response … Again the GM/CEO is answering on behalf of QVMAG’s ‘governors/trustees/custodians and again without clear evidence that he has been formally granted the authority to do so except for the authority SECTION62/2 of the Act affords him albeit arguably quite inappropriate to do so under the circumstances here.
