However there is a significant difference between 'ownership' and "management and control". There would be little argument that the museum's collections are in 'Public Ownership'. Strategic assets – Police & Armed Forces, Water, Roads, Sewage Systems, the Electric Grid etc. – are kept under public ownership given that they are vital to national infrastructure and security and those areas which require the highest safety standards. Likewise, a Nation's, a State's , a Region's, cultural assets – cultural capital – is arguably best held in Public Ownership.
Given that there is an innate belief that National, State, Regional museums hold within their collections publicly owned cultural property – Indigenous & Nonindigenous – and held there for the common good this belief impacts itself upon the expectation a museum's Community of Ownership and Interest (COI) has for the museum's and its collections' management and accountability.
Rather than extrapolate 'ownership' from the Local Govt. Act 1993 it is more appropriate to characterise management and control as custody or stewardship. With this management and control comes both rights and obligations. The act provides for the right to " sell and exchange the contents" with the obligation to do so in "such manner as appears best calculated to advance the objects of the institution." All of this is more analogous to enduring power of attorney than it might be to ownership.
From a marketing perspective the assertion that LCC "owns and manages the Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery" is, and has been, unhelpful – counterproductive even. At the 2002 QVMAG Search Conference there were in attendance members of and residents from LCC's adjoining Local Govt. areas. At that time LCC residents had free entry to the QVMAG while people living a few streets away were required to pay a $10 per person entry fee. It is no surprise that attendances during the time of the $10 entry fee attendance levels at the QVMAG fell – and arguably dramatically. Furthermore, while on one hand there were complaints that:
- LCC was picking up the lion's share of the QVMAG's costs;
- The constituents of adjoining Councils were enjoying the benefits of the QVMAG at no cost;
- Adjoining Councils were not contributing to the QVMAGs recurrent costs;
- By comparison to Hobart, LCC's ratepayers were carrying all the costs and Hobart's ratepayers were making no real contribution to the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery etc. etc.
No comments:
Post a Comment