Friday, 29 August 2014

FW: QVMAG Acquisition, Deaccession Policies & Future Directions


Forwarded Message
From: Mayor <Mayor@launceston.tas.gov.au>
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2014 03:34:48 +0000
To: "Ray Norman (raynorman@eftel.net.au)" <raynorman@eftel.net.au>
Subject: QVMAG Acquisition,  Deaccession Policies & Future Directions

Hi Ray

Attached is letter in response to email below.

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: Monday, 18 August 2014 3:33 PM
To: [MGAB]_1
Subject: FW: AGAIN: QVMAG Acquisition, Deaccession Policies & Future Directions

FYI ONLY
NO ACTION ANTICIPATABLE
Forwarded Message
From: Ray Norman <raynorman@eftel.net.au>
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2014 15:42:01 +1000
To: Mayor <Mayor@launceston.tas.gov.au>
Cc: LCC Records <records@launceston.tas.gov.au>, Richard Mulvaney <Richard.Mulvaney@launceston.tas.gov.au>
Subject: AGAIN: QVMAG Acquisition,  Deaccession Policies & Future Directions

TO: Mayor & Aldermen,

I had hoped to have at least received an acknowledgement of the receipt of this letter. Moreover, some acknowledgement of the significance of the matters raised and advice on what action/s if any are being considered would also have been appropriate by now I believe.

As the QVMAG’s Trustees, it is disappointing to see the custodians of collections allegedly valued at $230 million plus treating a matter like this with such scant regard. It’s especially so as it is a matter that falls totally within Council’s/Aldermen’s  bailiwick given that is a policy matter – and a matter to do with ’trust’. It’s matter clearly outside management’s operational  responsibilities and authority except in an advisory capacity.

Undoubtedly there needs to be wider advice sought from within the field given the weight of responsibility falling to Aldermen – the custodians of approx 23% of Tasmania’s cultural assets. And, given that Council is seeking a change in State Govt. funding to protect ratepayers from further imposts, I imagined that there would be some urgency exercised in regard to matters such as this.

Furthermore, against the background that the Auditor General has already raised concerns about the collection’s administration, and the adequacy of its records, I am concerned that this matter seems to be regarded in such a cavalier manner. The most concerning thing is that it appears that action here somehow seems to be regarded as being discretionary.

Again, I look forward to your early advice.

Regards,

Ray Norman


Ray Norman  |<zingHOUSEunlimited> | PH: 03-6334 2176 | EMAIL: raynorman@eftel.net.au |40 Delamere Crescent Trevallyn TAS. 7250


A research network dedicated to developing more inclusive 21st C understandings & imaginings of place
Prof. Bill Boyd: Review Editor & Project Coordinator
Ray Norman : Director & Project Coordinator (Tasmania)
eMAIL: nudgelbar-tas@7250.net
BLOG: http://thenudgelbahinstitute.blogspot.com.au/
AUDITING PLACEDNESS
http://auditingplacedness.blogspot.com.au/


Forwarded Message
From: Ray Norman <raynorman@eftel.net.au>
Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2014 16:25:11 +1000
To: Mayor <Mayor@launceston.tas.gov.au>
Cc: Richard Mulvaney <Richard.Mulvaney@launceston.tas.gov.au>
Subject: QVMAG Acquisition,  Deaccession Policies & Future Directions

TO:  MAYOR & ALDERMEN

Sometime during August last year, and again earlier this year, I asked both the Director and the General Manager about the QVMAG’s Acquisition and Deaccession Policy and its relevance to world’s best practice. I was informed that two past policies – Acquisition &  Deaccession – had been combined to form a single policy document. I have been provided with a copy of this combined document dated June 2013 that I understand to be still in its draft form a year on.

I believe that this draft falls well short of  best practice on the grounds that:
  1. Given that it is a  policy document it needed to have been initiated by the Trustees/Aldermen with a set timeframe and in fact it has initiated by QVMAG’s management without any hint of there being an expected completion date  – albeit that management may need to have an input;
  2. It appears to be founded on an outdated(?) policy document that should have been approved by the Trustees/Aldermen but it appears that it was not. By extension, this means  that the new draft also lacks accountability at the outset;
  3. From the perspective of collection development, it should be definite and relevant to current understandings in museology and cultural practice but it is ambiguous and anarchic;
  4. From the perspective current cultural understandings it should reflect current understandings in it's drafting but it is a poor representation of current museum practice and cultural theory;
  5. The criteria for the inclusion of scientific material in the collections should be specificic but the draft is somewhat ambiguous and far too open to interpretation;
  6. In respect to deaccession, the processes documented should reflect best practice in museology and accountability but it falls short of that and specifically so in regard to accountability;
  7. In respect to deaccession, the methodologies in regard to determining ‘value’ should be multidimensional – cultural, social, scientific & fiscal –  whereas value is projected as  being entirely money based – and based on inappropriately low amounts;
  8. In respect to either the accessioning or deaccessioning of a collection item/object the decision-making should rest with the Trustees/Aldermen, where accountability actually rests, but it is entirely, an inappropriately, placed in the hands of management.








Given that a museum’s and/or art gallery’s most important policy is its:
  1. Accession Policy in that it determines how recurrent, acquisition and project funding, will be employed thus ensuring the institution's integrity and ability to meet its purpose;
  2. Deaccession Policy in so much as it ensures that there is true accountability to its funders and donors – government, corporate & private – in accord with ethical standards; and
  3. On the evidence provided by the draft document the QVMAG’s policy/s in regard Accession and Deaccession arguably falls well short of the appropriate professional standards the institution should be upholding.



Questions arising:
  1. When will LCC, as the QVMAG’s Trustees, move to ensure that the institution’s Acquisition and Deaccession Policies meet professional and best practice standards, ideally world’s best practice?
  2. What advice will LCC seek and/or rely upon to ensure that the policies do indeed have currency and at the same time meet best practice standards?
  3. What importance do the Trustees/Aldermen place upon these policies meeting best practice in a national or international context?
  4. What does the Council need to do to initiate an appropriate audit to ensure that best practices are adheared to and credible accountability is in place in regard to collections allededly valued at $230 million plus?
  5. In the context of seeking additional State Government funding for the QVMAG:




   * What action is Council taking to regularise the QVMAG’s operational model relevant to best practice in museology looking ahead to higher levels of accountability?
    * What processes has Council put in place to ensure the protection of the QVMAG’s collections and programming looking ahead to potential funding constraints?
    * What advice is Council going to rely upon in negotiating new relationships between the QVMAG, other regional musingplaces,the Sate Government and other funding agencies?

I look forward to Council’s early advice given recent developments in Tasmania relevant to musingplace funding and their accountability.

Regards,

Ray Norman
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

Prof. Bill Boyd: Review Editor & Project Coordinator
Ray Norman : Director & Project Coordinator (Tasmania)
eMAIL: nudgelbar-tas@7250.net
BLOG: http://thenudgelbahinstitute.blogspot.com.au/
AUDITING PLACEDNESS
http://auditingplacedness.blogspot.com.au/

------ End of Forwarded Message
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



















Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)