SUMMARY
There is a perception that the proposed
'cultural unit' is intended to be a part of Launceston Council's operational structure. Likewise, that perception is underpinned by a notion that there is no imperative on the part of Council's operational wing to actively engage with, take advice from or initiate collaborative/cooperative concept development with the
'cultural communities' that are the subject of the proposed unit's work –
albeit that this ambiguous currently.
As a
'cost centre' the unit is bound to be a drain at some level on Council's recurrent budget. The extent to which it may be is open to speculation but it is clear that Launceston's aldermen have not actively considered the fiscal implications of putting such a unit in place –
at least not yet. This being the case the unit's future must be regarded as being
'politically vulnerable'.
Given that there has been no clear and unambiguous
'purpose' for the proposed unit set out so far it follows that the proposal is unsupported by a set of objectives. Likewise, the rationales in support of the initiative are unclear and far from being anything that might be considered
'unambiguous'.
That this is the outcome of a consultancy it is hard to imagine that the city's aldermen have serious interrogated the proposal and the veracity of the apparent assumptions informing the imitative. In fact, allowing this proposal to proceed to its current stage of development without serious investigation around the table in open Council raises a series of uncomfortable questions –
question that deserve further consideration.
BACKGROUND
On Monday, March 26 2018,Launceston City Council pulled a
‘cherry picked’ community consultation manoeuvre in honour of the impending(?)
Cultural Strategy for Launceston. These events are becoming more and more blatant and this time it is the city’s
cultural communities and networks that are in the Aldermen’s sights.
But why and what for? ... CLICK HERE TO SEE THE INVITATION
The QVMAG has apparently been attempting to put a cultural strategy in place and the omnipresent Adelaideian singer cum festival organiser cum cultural guru,
Robyn Archer. was enlisted as a consultant to tell the General Manager, and the good aldermen, how to do it. Sadly, the Commonwealth Games seems to have gotten in the way and the ball is now in someone else’s court –
apparently.
But what did Robyn Archer have to say in her report to Council? After all she was presumably paid to do a job for the Launceston community. If so, why is it that her advice is
confidential and what was she actually asked do? Curiously, Robyn Archer does not mention her consultancy on her online CV -
http://robynarcher.com/biocv/
Launceston’s now departed General Manager, Robert Dobrzynski, was driving the Robyn Archer consultancy process but he has left the scene stage right and the process is now in the QVMAG Director, Richard Mulvaney’s lap – on Monday he was playing catch up. So, new consultants have been enlisted midstream, it seems, and by necessity some of the stratagem is starting to reveal itself under the mantra of “we are listening’’. Why NOW and why not before? Curiously, Robyn Archer’s report to Council was waived aloft at the meeting but mystifyingly it appears as if its contents are to remain confidential. It also appears that the new consultant’s brief is also confidential until the right person asks the right question at the right time in the right place. Launcestonians have seen all this before and increasingly in Launceston this approach appears to the 'status quo modus operandi'.
Basil Fitch continually reminds residents and ratepayers that
Section 62 of the Local Government Act allows a General Manager to
“do anything necessary or convenient”. However, many in Launceston’s arts community are asking why a
'cultural strategy' has anything to do with the Council –
roads, rates and rubbish that is.
In fact, it is puzzling that Council is meddling directly in
‘the arts and culture’ in the city other than to facilitate cultural outcomes at the behest of ratepayers, or for some marketing purpose even if either is unstated –
and then on what “expert advice” as is required under Section 65 of the Act is this taking place now.
Several of the city’s artists, who understandably wish to remain anonymous, have asked “how is it that the Council has any expertise at all to enable it to ever interfere with artists work?” Ex Alderman Fitch in recent years has been challenging Launceston Council on the “so-called expertise that Council deems it has via the General Manager in multiple contexts. ” .
Mr. Fitch says, “
Council has increasingly overstepped its authority and the aldermen have allowed the city’s managers to continually sideline them. In the end the aldermen have failed, and are failing, to represent their ratepayers and residents. Here it is the arts community, other times it’s the business community, other times it mum-and-dad property investors and it goes on and on.”
The Monday meeting – “
sorry, information session” – was for a cherry-picked audience to be brought into the fold given that the stated aim of the session was to share with a predisposed audience
‘information’ about:
• “what has been done,
• what is happening now and
• where we are headed to in the short, medium and long term.”
However, there was no indication of an intention to allow any meaningful consultation to go on – nor apparently any real chance of it either. Also, there is the background projection that whatever comes out of the process, no matter how ambiguous, is destined for automatic approval and with deemed delegated authority – and that could turn out to be somewhat concerning.
The ‘session’ was decorated with ‘good news’ of various kinds apparently designed to placate and/or divert ‘the natives’ attention away ‘from other matters’– ie.
• news of the $500K to be spent at ‘The Princess‘ on a new sound system, and
• the QVMAG going all entrepreneurial via the brewing industry, and
• MOFO’s planned return in 2019.
All of which was designed to spice up the assertion that “we are determined to get the right Cultural Strategy for Launceston, [and oh yes], one that is uniquely its own and one that will create the kind of creative community that its many artists, performers, writers, musicians, producers, videographers, digital creatives, poets, comedians, playwrights, designers, architects, choirs, film-makers and the many other cultural practitioners are proud of”.... but all this is an aspiration, a laudable one even, but it is not a purpose.
There are a couple of points that seem to have escaped the good aldermen’s attention when letting this dog’s tail wag like it is doing. As ex-aldermen Fitch puts it
“if it looks good, sounds good, it must be good, but is it really?” He says, “
you see all this has got this far without due process around the table and we have been here before so many times in the last three or so years and the ratepayers always lose out in the end.”
A CULTURAL AUDIT
Ray Norman reports that since it was announced that Robyn Archer was appointed as a consultant he has been told that she was doing a
"cultural audit". If that is so where is the outcome since it appears as if Robyn Archer has delivered her
'report'. If there is such an audit in Robyn Archer's report it would be more than useful for the communities which the
'audit' has focused upon. It would good for them to have access to it. That is the
entire network of people who are cultural producers, audiences, etc. that make up the city's
'cultural community' – those deemed to be stakeholders and those deemed to be appropriately interested parties.
A cultural audit is a purposeful thing to do and ideally it needs to be done in collaboration and cooperation with the communities that are the subject of the audit. Thus far, if such an audit has been attempted it seems to have been done in isolation, and somewhere insulated from, the
'subject communities'. Very often these kinds of audits are characterised as being
"dubious pen sucking exercises'.
Here, the
'subject communities' will not always fall within the municipality of Launceston bounded as the city is by
'political borders' especially so given these border's cultural porosity
. So when politics collides with a
'cultural landscape' things tend to be deliberately overlooked to serve the purposes of bureaucratic convenience.
THE STRATEGIC PROCESS.
Tamar Cultural Forum via Launceston's
Concerned Citizen Network has sought independent advice from a management consultant with significant corporate experience. It has been pointed out that the fundamental flaw that seems to be evident in the process that is being followed by Launceston Council is that the whole process is back-to-front.
Normally, in the development of a ‘strategy’ one would clearly identify a purpose and/or a need. After that, one would determine some ‘objectives’ that were consistent with ‘the purpose’. To get this far there would be reasons identified in regard as to why these things were important and relevant.
Typically, only then would a credible consultant make any attempt to advise on any strategies to be put in place. In regard to this “cultural strategy for Launceston” none of this is evident except perhaps in the minds of people working alone and isolated from, and perhaps insulated from, the people they are attempting to put a ‘strategy’ in place for – and speculatively.
Beyond all that there is no evidence that a basic ‘Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities & Threats’ assessment (a SWOT Test) has been carried out by anyone – or at least not yet. In situations like this such an assessment is fundamental when positioning an initiative and setting priorities. If it has been done why haven’t its outcomes been published and shared with the communities that will be impacted upon by the initiative?
THE INTEGRITY OF PROCESS
Taking on board the factors set out above, and looking at what has been reported to have been achieved so far, it appears that there is quite a bit to be concerned about given that:
- An Executive Officer - Arts and Culture seems to have been already appointed;
- A ‘Cultural Unit’ of some kind seems to have already been established at the cost of $50,000;
- Some form of confidential report has happened and seemingly well away from public scrutiny; and
- There is a lack of evidence that the subjects of the strategy – those to whom it is being applied and those who will be funding the strategy – have been engaged in a consultation process nor is it set out anywhere as to how and when they might be if it is planned for them to be.
- It is possible that it is being considered that a fully accountable consultation process will be too expensive, too time consuming possibly, when the required answers are to hand already.
Given the aldermen may have already been persuaded to give the project, along with its potential outcomes, a tick, what might this tell us?
Looking forward it seems reasonable to assume that what is being planned is more ‘information sessions’ with key stakeholders rather than anything resembling a data gathering process that allows for unpredictable cum unanticipated questions and unplanned for outcomes.
This initiative has all the indicators that it has been imagined in reverse order, or put another way, the horse has been harnessed up the wrong way around in the cart – the horse will suffer intolerably and as for the cart, well it’s unlikely to go anywhere fast.
THE COST OF THE APPARENT STRATEGY
Given that one salaried position seems to have already been put in place it is anticipatable that this position will require support of the equivalent of at least another full-time position. In turn, these positions will require services plus infrastructure in order to deliver whatever outcomes/dividends ‘the unit’ is set up to deliver – ideally purposefully.
If 'the unit' is to use existing infrastructure and equipment, at what opportunity cost will it do so?
All the indicators seem to point to an implementation cost of at least $100K – salary plus on-costs – and quite likely something well in excess of that depending upon how it is implemented. It is not beyond possibility that the implementation could cost as much as $200K with recurrent expenditure running to say up to $100K pa - minimum.
When the decision to proceed with the initiative is made it:
• Should be understood what opportunities, income even, will be forgone; and
• Likewise, if there are to be dividends – fiscal and/or other – they need to be identified, estimated and quantified; and
• Moreover, to what purpose will any income will be applied and/or from what source, and by whom, will over budget expenditure be sourced.
In addition to this, anticipated outcomes need to be identified and
Key Performance Indicators need to be identified.
Curiously, there appears to be no evidence that any this has been taken into account, or that any of it is even on the to-do-list. Plus, given that it will be funded from the public purse, is there any indication that a line item statement of accounts will be made available to ‘the public’ – where and/or when.
Without doubt the initiative, as projected, will have a considerable cost. Similarly, it may well be that it is envisaged that it will ultimately turn into a substantial ‘cost centre’ within Council’s budget. None of this seems to have been seriously considered and the unspoken imperative appears to be that the ratepayers and residents can be conscripted to pay whatever the cost turns out to be.
KEY STAKEHOLDERS
The process of implanting a cultural unit within The City of Launceston's operation and managerial structure needs to be challenged given that on the evidence it is not in response to an 'identified or articulated purpose' – and consequently lacks a set of goals and objectives.
For there to be a meaningful purpose it is the role of the 'stakeholders cum cultural community' to articulate it and/or act upon it in accord with the aspirations of the relative networks in the community - here cultural networks.
It is NOT the function of 'governance' – at any level – or its bureaucratic operatives to speculate upon a purpose and then initiate a strategy to implement it in isolation. It's especially so in relation to 'culture'. At least its not the case in a system of representational governance where governance's role is to determine policies and strategies. Quite simply it is management's role to implement governance's policies in accord with governance's strategic purpose.
However, if we understand 'culture' to mean the sum total of way of living that are:
• built up by a groups/communities of people;
• transmitted from one generation to another; and that
• encompasses particular behaviours and belief systems; and that
• are characteristic of a particular social, ethnic, or age group;
currently in 'places' – cultural landscapes – like Launceston these things are increasingly complex and multidimensional.
Consequently, the concepts of 'stakeholder and cultural community' are unlikely to be adequately defined from the outside. Likewise, 'deeming' this or that group to be, or not to be, a stakeholder is inappropriate if not arrogant. Thus the notion of "stakeholder" as it is being projected via Launceston's aldermen collectively, and deliberately at the behest of 'Council's management', is ever likely to lead to dysfunctional outcomes. That's the risk here!
A CULTURAL FORUM
If there is a perception on the part of Council that Launceston's cultural communities need to lift their game in some way or other there is no supporting evidence to suggest that the Council's 'cultural operations' are in any position to be offering such a critique. Rather, these operations might well be the subject of similar critiques relative to the recurrent funding they are the recipients of and the outcomes delivered.
Council operations such as the QVMAG are perceived as, and deemed to be operating as, a 'cost centre' which by extension means that 'survival' is the driving imperative rather than 'success' – survival equals success. Dickens' Mr Micawber's famous and often quoted, 'recipe for happiness':is instructive here ... "Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen [pounds] nineteen [shillings] and six [pence], result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery." Dickens, through Mr Micawber, had a very good idea about what 'riskless survival' looks like.
On the face of it, Council seems to be proposing that it will risk spending something in the order of $200K doing something yet to be specified and for which a 'puroposful reason for being' is yet to determined. Moreover, it seems that Council intends to 'conscript/levy' these funds via its recurrent budget and thus by extension, each of the city's rateable properties will need to be paying an extra $7 to $8pa on top of the extra $500 the extra rates they are currently paying for 'regional servicing'.
NB: the QVMAG claims to be a "Regional Institution', indeed the largest regional museum cum art gallery in Australia, it is not funded regionally, nor is it accountable to any form of regional governance.
If Launceston' proposed 'unit's' purpose was to be something like 'to facilitate a platform that proactively encourages with open and inclusive interfaces between cultural producers, audiences and their various networks' the purpose might be better placed in the 'Tamar Region' rather than Launceston alone. However, speculating what the unit's 'purpose' is intended to be is entirely speculative given that it is not set out anywhere obvious. Clearly, on the basis of information to hand thus far, the unit is not intended to be a networking operation at all.
CONCLUSION
The perception that the proposed 'cultural unit' is intended to be a part of Launceston Council's operational structure seems to be well founded. Likewise, the perception that there is no imperative on the part of Council's operational wing to actively engage with, take advice from or initiate collaborative/cooperative programming with, also appears to be well enough founded.
As a 'cost centre' the unit is bound to be a drain at some level on Council's recurrent budget. The extent to which it may be is open to speculation but it is clear that Launceston's aldermen have not actively considered the fiscal implications of putting such a unit in place. This being the case it is bound to be 'politically vulnerable' long term.
Given that there has been no clear and unambiguous 'purpose' for the proposed unit set out so far it follows that the proposal appears to emanate out of a vacuum and is thus unsupported by a set of objectives. Likewise, the rationales in support of the initiative are unclear, at times opaque and largely missing. Whatever, it is all far from being anything that might be considered 'compelling'.
If all this is the outcome of an consultancy it is hard to imagine that the city's aldermen have allowed this proposal to proceed to its current stage of development without serious investigation around the table in open Council – yet it appears as if they have.
T. Alen, et al APRIL 2018
