DEFINITION:
- Community of Ownership and Interest (COI): (compound noun/proposition) an all-inclusive collective/community of people, individuals and groups, who in any way have multi layered relationships with a place or cultural landscape and/or the operation of an institution, organisation or establishment – typically a network.
- Usage and context: cultural geography; civic and environmental planning; and community administration
- REFERENCE: Dr Bill Boyd, SCU et al
CONTEXT NOTE: Used in opposition to ‘stakeholder’:
- one who has a legitimate interest, stake and/or pecuniary interest in an enterprise, endeavour or entity.
- Also used to demonstrate inclusivity as opposed to the exclusive implications attached to ’stakeholder’.
- Also used to demonstrate inclusivity in regard to planning process when and where PLACEscaping and/or CULTURALlandscaping become important concerns – especially so when and where multiple 'cultural entities/realities' share a 'place'.
LINKS
• My Community Tasmania ... Click Here
• Wunderkammers Now ... Click Here
• Mapping Landscape Ownerships ... Click Here
• Auditing Placedness ... Click Here
NOTE ON THE OWNERSHIP ISSUE
Interestingly, at a 'Search Conference' – a three day affair in 2002 – attended by people interested in the the Queen Victoria Museum & Art Gallery (QVMAG) the issue of 'ownership' was contested. The attendees, all of whom where self selected, were clearly members of the institution's COI and they clearly understood themselves in that way. That they did so, and collectively, and that they identified themselves as a COI, the issue of 'ownership' in 'lore and law' is not insignificant. it is all the more so in regard to local governance where 'the governors' typically rank themselves at the top of a pyramidal hierarchy in contests of authority.
At the time, Launceston's non-residents were being charged a $10 entry fee to the QVMAG. Attendances were falling and the recurrent costs of the institution were rising – and have done since albeit stabilised in the last decade. Despite the outcomes of this conference and the Chamberlain Report that was commissioned by Council following the conference, and that advocated change for the QVMAG, the institution is in essence currently still trying to address the same set of issues as before 2002 – albeit stimulated by a different set of circumstances. In essence, Council's 'operational wing' has rejected the 'COI concept' in favour of maintaining the 'imagination of the institution's ranked stakeholdership'
There is a very good case to contest this 'understanding' that owes its foundation to 'hierarchical managerialism'. the operational manifestation of this phenomena in recent years has worked assiduously to eclipse Council – the elected representatives – in its policy setting and strategy determination.
Arguably, the City of Launceston – and somewhat perversely – has allowed management to blur the governance and management roles and functions of not only the QVMAG but across the entire 'local governance operation' in the City of Launceston. Moreover, there is a very good case to be put that all this has been, and is being, to the detriment of the city and the Communities of Ownership and Interest across the full spectrum of the city's cultural realities.
Clearly this history played out in the QVMAG has inhibited the effectiveness of the QVMAG's marketing as much as as it has other components of Launceston's cultural landscape and social networks – indeed the city as a whole. It turns out that the QVMAG is the fraction that mirrors the whole and that this is informative.
The 2002 Search Conference was in fact an early demonstration of the levels of the diversity of and the passionately asserted ownerships of and interests people had invested in the QVMAG as institution.
It was also a pointer to the unrealised outcomes and the missed opportunities the museum's governance, and consequently its marketing needs that are yet to be addressed as comprehensively in 2018 as it was identified that it needed to be in 2002.
Ultimately, all this is a 'failure of governance' and there is no other way to dress up the circumstance in order to soften the realisations of faltering outcomes and the diminishment of opportunities.
At the time, Launceston's non-residents were being charged a $10 entry fee to the QVMAG. Attendances were falling and the recurrent costs of the institution were rising – and have done since albeit stabilised in the last decade. Despite the outcomes of this conference and the Chamberlain Report that was commissioned by Council following the conference, and that advocated change for the QVMAG, the institution is in essence currently still trying to address the same set of issues as before 2002 – albeit stimulated by a different set of circumstances. In essence, Council's 'operational wing' has rejected the 'COI concept' in favour of maintaining the 'imagination of the institution's ranked stakeholdership'
There is a very good case to contest this 'understanding' that owes its foundation to 'hierarchical managerialism'. the operational manifestation of this phenomena in recent years has worked assiduously to eclipse Council – the elected representatives – in its policy setting and strategy determination.
Arguably, the City of Launceston – and somewhat perversely – has allowed management to blur the governance and management roles and functions of not only the QVMAG but across the entire 'local governance operation' in the City of Launceston. Moreover, there is a very good case to be put that all this has been, and is being, to the detriment of the city and the Communities of Ownership and Interest across the full spectrum of the city's cultural realities.
Clearly this history played out in the QVMAG has inhibited the effectiveness of the QVMAG's marketing as much as as it has other components of Launceston's cultural landscape and social networks – indeed the city as a whole. It turns out that the QVMAG is the fraction that mirrors the whole and that this is informative.
The 2002 Search Conference was in fact an early demonstration of the levels of the diversity of and the passionately asserted ownerships of and interests people had invested in the QVMAG as institution.
It was also a pointer to the unrealised outcomes and the missed opportunities the museum's governance, and consequently its marketing needs that are yet to be addressed as comprehensively in 2018 as it was identified that it needed to be in 2002.
Ultimately, all this is a 'failure of governance' and there is no other way to dress up the circumstance in order to soften the realisations of faltering outcomes and the diminishment of opportunities.
No comments:
Post a Comment