FOREWORD 

It is important to note that the process was devised by/for the  City of Launceston's Council to develop and deliver "A Cultural Strategy For Launceston" and it has apparently been 'devised' by-and-large in isolation from 'the community'. Indeed,  even the 'arts community', however it may be variously understood, seems to be disengaged. 

Likewise, the QVMAG's Trustees – the city's aldermen – have not thus far been in open discussion with their constituents in regard the development of this key policy. Notwithstanding this, the 'Trustees' have consistently used their deemed authority to 'silently levy' ratepayers to cover the QVMAG's recurrent budget while apparently seeking to grow the city's 'cultural sector' in isolation.

Thus the process arguably lacks meaningful 'community consultation' and as a consequence there been little to no detectable community engagement. Also, there is signalling evident that suggests that the 'operational wing' of Council is set to grow via its own initiatives. This would be under the auspices of "The Cultural Strategy For Launceston" process and its current 'orchestration' – and with the prospect of 'the growth' being exponential over time.

It appears as if the desired outcome has been determined in-house and that the evidence/information to support that position is being assembled to underpin the projected outcome.

INTRODUCTION 

Effectively, 'the community', the subject of the strategy, has been bureaucratically insulated from the process currently in play – and from the very beginning.

While the process does talk about "consultation", up to now asking about the process has consistently drawn the reply, in essence, that it is "confidential information" pertinent only to Council's 'operational wing' thus information will be made available in 'due course' – along with  other responses designed to deflect attention.

It is a matter of contention as to whether or not this is 'by design' or that it has been assumed that 'the community' lacked the capacity, the 'expertise', the interest even, to participate and contribute in a 'meaningful way'. If so, that would be both flawed and an arrogant assumption.

In either instance it is flawed reasoning given that 'the community' is the subject of whatever process is actually in play leading to whatever anticipated outcome – and as yet unarticulated in public on the record using conscripted public funding  to arrive at an outcome. Also, it discounts the expertise of people in the city and region.

Hints, and only hints, as to where the process was/is going can be gleaned here and there. However, any hint of including the various and layered 'Communities of Ownership and Interest' (COI) is illusive if not absent. .

To discover that Launceston has a "strong commitment to building partnerships with stakeholders, and seeking greater community involvement in the activities and decision making processes of council" is bewildering to say the least. IF this statement is in fact a 'Council Policy' and one that has been passed by, and adopted by, Council in 'open council around the table' the process in play would seem to run counter that kind of understanding. 

THE PROCESS

Against this backgrounding there is quite a bit to ponder upon. In a 21st C context and in the context of current 'cultural sensibilities' where there is a changing paradigm within which to ponder upon such things as 'cultural landscaping' and assess 'COI expectations and aspirations'. The process does not seem to begin 'purposefully' working towards identifying a set of 'aspirations/objectives' in accord with a 'vision/expectations' supported by commensurate rationales that comes together in a set of purposeful strategies. 

There is sufficient evidence to suggest that the process as it stands demonstrates a disconnect, if not the disengagement, with the community upon whom the costs largely falls – and by conscription. Given the broader social cum economic cum community wide implications of the process this is unfortunate to say the very least. 

That said, 'the exercise' is both worthwhile and retrievable/repairable if there is the bureaucratic will and the intellectual wherewithal to effect the necessary changes. Arguably, the most urgent task is to reposition the investigation in order to give 'regional imperatives' more prominence. Currently, the process appears to be contained within the City of Launceston's 'municipal borders' presumably based on the overworked idea that 'the place' is Tasmania's largest city, etc. etc. 

Moreover, rightly or wrongly, the process seems to privilege Anglocentric cum colonial cum monocultural perceptions of 'place, placemaking and placedness'. Given the paradigm shifts in play in regard to cultural landscaping it would be more than unfortunate if this issue was to go unaddressed – and addressed overtly. 

The projection and implication that Launceston has a "community engagement policy in place" is unsupported by the evidence on the ground.

This process, as it presents itself, carries all the hallmarks of it 'being done to' the community rather than 'with' the community in partnership and collaboration. 

There is much to ponder in a 21st C context with current 'cultural sensibilities' in mind. Then there is a 'COI expectations and aspirations' to consider given that effectively such issues appear to have flown well below the radar thus far.