TO: Mayor: ADVICE ... Fri, 27 Jun 2014 16:35:06

Forwarded Message
From: Ray Norman <raynorman@eftel.net.au>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2014 16:35:06 +1000
To: Mayor <Mayor@launceston.tas.gov.au>
Subject: Re: ADVICE

CONFIDENTIAL

Hello again Albert,

For your information, you might well believe that Council is (might be?) acting in ratepayers’ best interests. Nonetheless, I put it to you that it is interesting that when a ratepayer – myself for example – raises legitimate concerns relevant to the Council’s performance and failings you and/or LCC management finds ways to ignore the matter or take on board any kind of criticism or critique. That’s so in spite of the Council's Community Engagement policy  and its laudable organisational vales.

Had you been present at the many meetings of the MGAB that I have attended trying sound alerts to dangers and risks,  and pointing to entrepreneurial opportunities, you would know first hand that I have already attempted to present many practical and achievable opportunities to the Trustees/Aldermen. Likewise, for the duration of my membership, I have referenced proven concepts and initiatives that had the potential to improve the QVMAG’s fiscal position and productivity – and opportunities that have precedence elsewhere.

Furthermore, you should also be aware of just how the Chairman closes down such discourses. Indeed, you’d be well aware others apparently being wedded to the status quo. Moreover, you would be aware of the resistance to proven opportunities, and the reluctance to engage in any kind of productive dialogue about anything beyond the assumed comfort of the status quo. And, all of this whilst appearing perplexed about judgements that the institution is “unsustainable”.

By not attending MGAB meetings or even deputising another Alderman to represent ‘the Trustees’, this has constituted a serious disconnect between the MGAB and the Trustees in ways that apperat to serve ratepayers et al poorly. The labyrinthine and overly bureaucratic rout information has to pass before Trustees get to hear of it, let alone consider it, mitigates in favour of the status quo and serves well all those with pecuniary investments in the status quo. I simply ask that you consider this proposition, take some meaningful action and demonstrate some leadership and commitment to the community rather than the Council management!

It would be useful for you, as a community representative on Council, as its chairperson and as a consequence the chairperson of the QVMAG’s Trustees, to understand that there exists at least two futures for the QVMAG as an institution.

1. Maintain the status quo, continue along the lines of the present bureaucratic cost centre model that effectively requires a per visit ‘visitors subsidy’ of something in the order of $50 to keep the QVMAG’s doors open and presupposes that as expenses go up suitable rate rises will follow;

VERSUS

2.  Movement towards a community entrepreneurial model for the operation within which the institution might offer:

• Greater value to its Community of Ownership & Interest – its investors over a long period of time;  and
• Serious community engagement with inclusive and participatory programming; and this
• coupled with proven cost reduction strategies;
  

holds the promise would enable the institution to operate in a more self-sufficient manner, more efficiently and more effectively relative to purpose plus reduce the constant reliance on ratepayers being able to afford to keep covering new costs that are being incurred.

Over time I have presented several concepts drawn from my research in the field that have not been passed on by the Chairman. Indeed, the actions of the Chairman and Council’s management could be characterised as being careless in regard to ratepayers’ concerns – e.g. excessive and rising rates plus a disconnectedness from modern economic realities.

Personally I have never been able to understand how you, and the other Trustees by extension, can choose between such options when information critical to understanding that option is not presented because the Board Chairman has not passed on such information, but more to the point, allowed for the development of such concepts. Instead of LCC being a place where ideas and innovation are encouraged, Council, and by extension QVMAG, presents as a place that will do whatever it takes to maintain the status quo. That makes the elected Aldermen – the QVMAG’s Trustees – appear to be regressive and closed to not only new ideas but also potential opportunity dividends. They thus appear to be little more than bystanders and cheerleaders for the General Manager without reference to whether value is being added.

Against this background I am now seeking your advice on the prospects of:

• A community not-for-profit enterprise that potentially engages upwards of 10 new people in meaningful employment over time; and
• That creates, manages, markets and facilitates touring exhibitions along with related ‘publications’;
• by gaining access to the QVMAG’s collections.
  

In the event that access could be gained what fees would be payable to LCC to offset ratepayer contributions to – investments in – the QVMAG as a repository of Tasmanian cultural material. I would appreciate any response you are able to make by the close of business Wednesday July 2. of Tasmanian cultural material.

Regards,

Ray

Ray Norman
<zingHOUSEunlimited>
The lifestyle design enterprise and research network

PH: 03-6334 2176
EMAIL 1: raynorman@eftel.net.au
EMAIL 2: ray@7250.net
40 Delamere Crescent Trevallyn TAS. 7250
WEBsite: http://www.raynorman7250.blogspot.com

On 27/06/14 9:35 AM, "Mayor" <Mayor@launceston.tas.gov.au> wrote:

Hi Ray

Thank you for your interest and concerns re; QVMAG over the many years which has been appreciated.  I believe that we should explore all options in seeking additional funding for QVMAG from the State Government.  I am satisfied that the Council is doing that and will continue in these endeavours unrelentingly.  However should you have any thoughts or ideas on how this should be done differently, I believe you should present them through the Governance Advisory Group and have the Chair inform Council of these ideas. I believe that the Council is acting in the best interests of ratepayers.

Kind regards


Albert van Zetten I Mayor I Launceston City Council
T 03 6323 3101 I F 03 6323 3125 I www.launceston.tas.gov.au <http://www.launceston.tas.gov.au/>

From: Ray Norman [mailto:raynorman@eftel.net.au]
Sent: Tuesday, 24 June 2014 8:45 PM
To: Mayor
Subject: ADVICE

CONFIDENTIAL

Dear Albert,

I write to you with a number of what I regard to be serious matters on my mind. Not all are directly to do with the QVMAG but all will have some impact on the QVMAG as an operation and as a cultural institution. All have something to do with the quality of LCC decision making plus the issues of accountability and council as a  productive and innovative workplace.

I acknowledge that I am in part in receipt of privileged knowledge in regard to QVMAG which is concerning given the culture of opacity that seems to be in play at LCC and thus the QVMAG. Concerningly, I find all this to be at odds with Council’s organisational values and its policy of community engagement beyond the QVMAG.

LCC’s Representations to State Govt. Re QVMAG
Having received a copy of the written representations Council has made to the State Government on behalf of Launceston’s ratepayers I find that, going by the document, the arguments presented are largely unconvincing and in many cases are arguably based on errors of perception. More could be made of that but there is little point as clearly a stronger case needs to be mounted if State Govt. funding is to be be secured even at the present level. My experience tells me that even that outcome is likely to be very difficult to achieve and I have written separately to the GM expressing these concerns. This prospect does not appear to be on anyone’s agenda and that is a concern given all that Launcestonians and so many benefactors have contributed/invested in the institution and its collections.

The Advice LCC is Privileging Re QVMAG
The MGAB received a copy of the most recent MMC-Link report. This document and its merits or otherwise are undiscussable on the grounds that:

1. The brief to which it responds is absent and consequently its purpose is opaque plus far from being readable, clear and unambiguous to the reader – and arguably any reader;
2. The expertise and qualifications that have been brought to bear in regard to the task at hand is not articulated;
3. Any evidence for the assertions the report makes are not presented. Indeed nothing useful is disclosed, unless of course one believes that a computer program/model is an/the expert!
4. No actions are indicated as a result of the report;
5. No conclusions are drawn nor recommendations made and supported by clear evidence; and
   

all these points are easily made and are comprehensible to anyone reading the report. Given the cost of the report this is more than concerning!

I put it to you that a more credible, and more inclusive effort, needs to be made. Moreover, it needs to be based upon consultation and collaborative domain knowledge and the sooner the better.

Section 65 Local Govt. Act
As a consequence of the above, questions arise out of all this:

• Of what value is this report, or indeed any of the MMC-Link Report relevant to QVMAG?
• Upon what evidence of what expertise, qualified advice and domain knowledge was the report commissioned?
• Upon what expertise and domain knowledge is Council relying upon, or able to rely upon, in regard to the QVMAG and the expenditure of $4million plus of ratepayer funds plus the additional tax payer funds spent recurrently?
• Is this cluster of reporting and consultancies indicative of the quality and veracity of the expertise Councils relies upon and has relied upon generally?
  

Apart from that, there's not much to be said about the current MMC-Link report except to say that far too much of it is inaccessible to Aldermen (about 60%) while the rest makes a number of claims without producing any evidence to support them. As a ratepayer I find all this somewhat distressing in that significant sums of money drawn from our rates are being expended upon projects that deliver such poor outcomes. I would appreciate your comments on this.

The GM has drawn his role in regard to Section 65 of the Local Govt. Act to my attention. I now ask, consistent with the Act, upon whose expertise, or what qualifications and domain knowledge, does he, and thus Council, rely upon in regard to consultancies in general and the most recent reports relevant to QVMAG and other matters?

Furthermore, upon what advice do Aldermen rely to ensure that aldermen are best placed to fulfil their policy determining and decision making roles and at the same time be truly accountable to their constituency?

I should advise you that I have written to the GM seeking similar advice to that which I’m now seeking from you independently. I see these matters as being important and worthy of urgent attention. Therefore, I look forward to your early advice on these issues. I also trust that you are able to assure me, and ratepayers generally, that Council, on the evidence, is indeed committed to:

• Conducting itself accountably in accord with the Act;
• Conducting itself ethically and equitably;  and
• Conducting itself  in close accord with its own organisational values and its community engagement policy.
  

Regards,

Ray

Ray Norman
<zingHOUSEunlimited>
The lifestyle design enterprise and research network

PH: 03-6334 2176
EMAIL 1: raynorman@eftel.net.au
EMAIL 2: ray@7250.net
40 Delamere Crescent Trevallyn TAS. 7250
WEBsite: http://www.raynorman7250.blogspot.com
NOTICE: this message, and any attachments, may contain privileged and confidential information intended for
the exclusive use of the addressee named above. If you are not the intended recipient of this message you must not
disseminate, copy or take any action in relation to the message. If you have received this message in error,
please immediately notify the sender at the above address and delete all copies of the message
The information in this email is absolutely confidential and commercial-in-confidence
 protocols apply to that information that may have a commercial application.

Furthermore, the intellectual property rights of the author(s) apply in accord with Australian Copyright and Moral Rights Laws.

 <https://twitter.com/LtonCityCouncil>  <http://www.youtube.com/user/LauncestonCtyCouncil>  <http://www.launceston.tas.gov.au>  <http://yourvoiceyourlaunceston.com.au/>

LAUNCESTON
Named Australia's most family friendly city by Suncorp 2013.
Named Tasmania's top eTown by Google 2013.
Home to Harvest Launceston, named Australia's Best Harvest Market by ABC Delicious magazine 2013.
Home to City Park, named in Australia's top ten parks by TripAdvisor 2013.
Keep Australia Beautiful - Community Action and Partnerships 2013
Tasmanian Tourism Award - Visitor Information and Services 2013
LGAT General Excellence Award - State of the Art Launceston Visitor Information Centre 2013

Please consider the environment before printing this, or any other e-mail or document.

________________________________________
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER

Information in this transmission is intended only for the person(s) to whom it is addressed and may contain privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying or dissemination of the information is unauthorised and you should delete/destroy all copies and notify the sender. No liability is accepted for any unauthorised use of the information contained in this transmission.

This disclaimer has been automatically added.
------ End of Forwarded Message