WHERE TO FROM HERE?
The situation at the Queen Victoria Museum & Art Gallery (QVMAG) that's been unfolding publicly is pretty much the way things have been for quite some time. Also, in regard to the inadequacy of the QVMAGs ‘collection policy’ there's clearly been 'Aldermanic disinterest' in the QVMAG as a 'cultural asset' – rather imagined as a cost centre and something of a liability.
Arguably, in all practical terms the City Council has been looking the other way so far as the QVMAG'S governance is concerned for well over a decade – some might argue longer.
Specifically, there is nowhere near enough attention paid to the institution to mitigate against the kind of outcome that's become more obvious withe the revelation that the QVMAG's collections are indeed leaking, or deteriorating, or not as complete or as intact as imagined.
To be fair this is not a situation exclusive to the QVMAG as many large 'musingplaces' that have been collecting for as long as the QVMAG face challenges to do with the management of their collections. More to the point current institutional governance in a 21st Century context at the QVMAG belongs more to the 19th Century and the institution 'colonial foundations' – sadly.
When management self-directs, self-regulates and ultimately self-assesses that is where you will find the box with a ticking noise inside – almost inevitably.
Basically, albeit speculatively and from experience on my own part, the QVMAG'S collection policy fails because it is designed by management in relative isolation from governance and funding sources: .
In a public ‘musingplace’ its collections policy is the cornerstone upon which it’s credibility is built and around which its ‘accountability’ is determined – functionally – in order that ‘trust’ can be invested in it. This should always be front of mind when framing and reviewing strategic directions and policies.
'Trusteeship' demands ‘trustworthiness’ and elections by design – and in all kinds of circumstances just do not, arguably cannot, deliver ‘trust by deeming’.
An ‘audit’ against this background, as is being suggested and projected, and ikt will be a very good starting point but the audit needs to be independent, forensic and importantly transparent – it's being assumed that it will be.
The audit will need to be credible in order that the ‘trust’ in the QVMAG’s governance and management can be restored – and in all too many cases, won.
Currently, the institutions governance and management has become fundamentally blurred and arguably in ways that compromise its status as an ‘public musingplace’ in receipt of ‘public monies’.
The missing ‘Brett Whiteley WAVE V drawing’, the ‘Mesibov slides’ and the apparent lack of documentation across some/many/various collections, and quite probably a number of other issues relative to the ‘collections’ policies’ sound a timely alert right now.
Whatever, in the end collection policies is a matter for ‘governance’ – a matter for trustees/aldermen/governors not management .
Launceston's ratepayers and residents might well be able to look forward with interest as to where the suggested audit ultimately leads.
The situation at the Queen Victoria Museum & Art Gallery (QVMAG) that's been unfolding publicly is pretty much the way things have been for quite some time. Also, in regard to the inadequacy of the QVMAGs ‘collection policy’ there's clearly been 'Aldermanic disinterest' in the QVMAG as a 'cultural asset' – rather imagined as a cost centre and something of a liability.
Arguably, in all practical terms the City Council has been looking the other way so far as the QVMAG'S governance is concerned for well over a decade – some might argue longer.
Specifically, there is nowhere near enough attention paid to the institution to mitigate against the kind of outcome that's become more obvious withe the revelation that the QVMAG's collections are indeed leaking, or deteriorating, or not as complete or as intact as imagined.
To be fair this is not a situation exclusive to the QVMAG as many large 'musingplaces' that have been collecting for as long as the QVMAG face challenges to do with the management of their collections. More to the point current institutional governance in a 21st Century context at the QVMAG belongs more to the 19th Century and the institution 'colonial foundations' – sadly.
When management self-directs, self-regulates and ultimately self-assesses that is where you will find the box with a ticking noise inside – almost inevitably.
Basically, albeit speculatively and from experience on my own part, the QVMAG'S collection policy fails because it is designed by management in relative isolation from governance and funding sources: .
- For the purposes of convenient and sometimes discretionary administrative processing;
- To allow for elastic and discretionary interpretation of ‘purposefulness’ by management;
- To afford governance the opportunities to assure itself of its appropriateness without critical review; and
- To (given the inbuilt elasticity) be a tool to avoid serious/meaningful critical review; and
- Despite the provisions of SECTION 65 of the Tasmanian Local Govt. Act which all by itself it has worrying discretionary implications.
In a public ‘musingplace’ its collections policy is the cornerstone upon which it’s credibility is built and around which its ‘accountability’ is determined – functionally – in order that ‘trust’ can be invested in it. This should always be front of mind when framing and reviewing strategic directions and policies.
'Trusteeship' demands ‘trustworthiness’ and elections by design – and in all kinds of circumstances just do not, arguably cannot, deliver ‘trust by deeming’.
An ‘audit’ against this background, as is being suggested and projected, and ikt will be a very good starting point but the audit needs to be independent, forensic and importantly transparent – it's being assumed that it will be.
The audit will need to be credible in order that the ‘trust’ in the QVMAG’s governance and management can be restored – and in all too many cases, won.
Currently, the institutions governance and management has become fundamentally blurred and arguably in ways that compromise its status as an ‘public musingplace’ in receipt of ‘public monies’.
The missing ‘Brett Whiteley WAVE V drawing’, the ‘Mesibov slides’ and the apparent lack of documentation across some/many/various collections, and quite probably a number of other issues relative to the ‘collections’ policies’ sound a timely alert right now.
Whatever, in the end collection policies is a matter for ‘governance’ – a matter for trustees/aldermen/governors not management .
Launceston's ratepayers and residents might well be able to look forward with interest as to where the suggested audit ultimately leads.
Ray Norman
Researcher & Cultural Geographer
Sept 2018
No comments:
Post a Comment