OPEN LETTER #2

LINK: http://openletter7250-1qvmag.blogspot.com.au/

___________________________

PURPOSE 

In the light of the outcome of the QVMAG Review Committee's Report and Council's recent determinations, establish a network of networked memberships to facilitate;

   • Interfaced institution wide marketing strategies;
   • Networked and rigorous scholarship, research and publication          initiatives; and
     • Inclusive and participatory program development.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE _ OBJECTIVES, RATIONALE, STRATEGIES & CONCLUSION

TURNING AN UNSUSTAINABLE COST CENTRE AROUND TOWARDS SUSTAINABILITY : MAY 11 2015

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED STEPS TOWARDS TRANSLATING THE QVMAG FROM A COST CENTRE INTO A COMMUNITY SOCIAL ENTERPRISE 

Against the background discussed below there are a number steps that seem logical to apply as an alternative to continuing to fund the QVMAG as a Cost Centre as it has been for decades. In addition, these steps are offered as an alternative to the counterproductive and the often failed strictures of economic rationalism typically applied to operations when their sustainability is questioned. The proposed steps in summary are as follows.  

• In accord with the musingplace’s publicly articulated and revised purpose in a 21st C context, divine an operating cost centre budget in accord with recent history. 

• Ensure that the funding required can indeed be secured in a socially cum politically sustainable manner. 

• Set the target for year one of a longer term budget review process with the expectation that 10% of that year one budget must be realised through entrepreneurial activity, excluding grants for recurrent expenditure. Underwrite this mechanism via a GAL (Guarantee Against Loss) to provide a level of security for the operation in it transition from cost centre budgeting towards more entrepreneurial budget models. 

• Allow for any income achieved to be held in a ‘suspension cum carry-over account’ towards the next years recurrent budget and/or capital expenditure depending upon its source. 

• Review the year one outcome and set the year two recurrent budget accordingly. As a part of this review determine which parts of the recurrent budget are in fact project and program funding and which parts are to do with the recurrent maintenance of the operation. 

• Reset the institution’s Strategic Plan and report the review findings, including year one outcomes, directly to all the institution’s funding agencies, sponsors and donors. 

• Set the target for year two of the process with the expectation that 20% of that budget must be realised through entrepreneurial activity and underwrite it via a GAL and as for Step 4 allow for the carry over of appropriate generated income be carried forward.

• Review the year two outcomes towards setting the appropriate level for the operation’s sustainable recurrent budget and continuing level of program delivery. 

In accord with outcomes achieved, and the overall review process, reset the operation’s Strategic Planning process and the timeframes within which enterprise planning takes place. Likewise, as a part of this review, determine which parts of income coming in the form of grants can be sustained in the short, medium and long term and what aspects of the operation they can be directly related to grant income for research and program delivery. AND importantly, measure the outcomes achieved in previous two years and assess their effectiveness relative to targeted cultural development and cultural tourism objectives. ....... CLICK HERE TO READ MORE

http://openletter7250-1qvmag.blogspot.com.au/2015/05/turning-unsustainable-cost-centre.html