Industry news
Arts & Business has launched a Private Policy for art “to ensure the British mixed economy model is not damaged by the recession”, said CEO Colin Tweedy. He said the significance of private giving was too often overlooked, but needs to be recognised and encouraged to help arts organisations through the economic downturn.
The initiative will include a council of leaders in both business and arts communities to act as a task force to advise on policy and practice; pushing for the reintroduction of the for the matching grant scheme that ran from 1984-2008; more philanthropists being honoured through The Prince of Wales Medal for Arts Philanthropy across the country to highlight giving of all sorts and sizes; and Leading On, joining Futurecity Arts to help develop the government’s initiatives to revitalise our high streets hit by the recession by filing empty spaces with art.
The new policy follows the results of a survey reported on in AI 230, which showed that while the majority of arts organisations had so far experienced no ill effects from the recession, others were seeing important finding sources falling away and were preparing for a bigger impact.
“Many in the arts are facing real difficulties - our own new research figures show over 60% of smaller arts bodies experiencing a fall in business investment” Tweedy said. “The private sector’s contribution to culture will recover more quickly than the public sector. And we believe that arts sponsorship will pick up faster than sport – 56% of decision makers now ranked the arts first choice.”
Arts Council England is to insulate vulnerable arts organisations and artists from the recession with a £44.5m fast track scheme mostly devoted to a new fund, Sustain.
The short, sharp initiative is for two years and the money will be generated by radically reducing lottery spending over the period.
Sustain will be an open application fund of £40m available to artists and organisations suffering directly because of the recession. There will also be a £4m increase in the lottery-fuelled Grants for the Arts budget, which partly targets individuals, and £500,000 to enable empty retail spaces to be used for artistic activities as part of the government’s Town Centres Initiative, reported on in AI 230.
Grants from £75,000 to £3 million will be awarded over, initially, 2009/10 and 2010/11. Any arts organisation can apply but priority will be given to those who are seen as vital to ACE’s mission of “great art for everyone”. The 2009/10 budget for Grants for the Arts will be increased from £52 to £54 million and will rise again in 2010/11 to £56 million.
Announcing the scheme, ACE chair Dame Liz Forgan said the package was devised to help the arts sector fulfil its wider social role as well as its cultural mikssion.
“The real challenge for the arts sector is not to ask ‘what is the government going to do to help us?’ but ‘what can we do to help the country weather and recover from this downturn?’” she said.
“Showing that we can make a real contribution in even the most difficult of times will be the best case we can make for continued public investment in the arts through – and just as importantly – beyond the recession.”
The increase is in contrast to the £4m cut in the arts grant for next year resulting from the Budget’s £20m reduction to the DCMS subvention for 2010-11. ACE has said it will absorb the cut without passing it on to clients.
“Of course we understand that the national debt has to be tackled, but a few million off the arts budget is going to make no appreciable difference to that task. On the other hand, it could undermine years of creative and financial investment” Forgan said. “The Arts Council will do all it can to keep that investment in place. We cannot protect artists from the realities of recession, but we can be as imaginative, open and useful as possible in our efforts to get us all through this with minimal damage to the creative life of this country.”
Empty shops can be converted into local art displays with the help of a £3 million fund to combat the recession in local high streets.
The fund is a joint initiative by government departments including the Department for Culture Media and Sport, to find creative ways to reduce the negative impact empty shops have on the high street and business confidence.
Under the proposals, planning application waivers, new types of lease and allowing local councils to temporarily take over empty shops woukld enable the spaces to be used for cultural, community or learning services, says Hazel Blears, whose Communities Department is spearheading the plan.
Chorley plan to set up a semi-permanent exhibition because of how popular turning empty shops into craft exhibitions, informal learning, and summer music workshops have proved.
The Department has published a practical guide Looking after our Town Centres which suggests ways of keeping town centres thriving.
Culture Secretary Andy Burnham, who flagged up the idea at a local government culture conference last month, said:”.By transforming otherwise empty town centre premises into hubs for culture and creativity, we can regenerate both the physical space itself and the hope and ambition of all those that have a stake in them.”
Belfast’s arts Festival at Queen’s now makes over £8 million a year for Northern Ireland’s economy new figures reveal.
A survey shows that over 1,300 audience members stayed in hotels during the festival, together with 479 visiting artists. The number of hotel bed nights occupied as part of the festival was more than 4,000. The number of festival visitors from outside Northern Ireland has also grown to 7 per cent of the total audience, a 250 per cent increase on the previous year
Ticket sales for the festival, now sponsored by Ulster Bank, have doubled since 2005 and last year’s total of 43,500 tickets sold made it the festival’s most successful year to date.
The research showed 90 per cent of audiences rated the 2008 Festival experience as excellent or very good. An even higher percentage thought that the quality of the programme was excellent or very good.
As a proportion of its turnover, Festival receives a modest level of public subsidy. In 2008 public funding accounted for 25 per cent of turnover with the remaining 75 per cent coming from private investment and box office income. This level of subsidy is low when compared with other comparable UK and Irish festivals and equates to just 5 per cent of the overall economic impact generated.
“The Festival is in excellent health,” director Graeme Farrow said. “Audiences have soared. We are now running a £1.75 million turnover business which brings fantastic benefits to Queen’s University, to Belfast and the region. The 16 day Festival, and the months leading up to it, create the annual full-time equivalent of 311 jobs, providing an important role in business development, particularly for smaller cultural enterprises.”
Roisin McDonough, chief executive of Arts Council Northern Ireland, said: “One of the lessons from the Festival is that public subsidy of the arts makes good economic sense. A relatively small investment goes a very long way “
An historic vessel is to be scrapped after its main source of income, the Friends of National Musuems Liverpool was disbanded by the museum.
The Wincham Preservation Society, which owns the preserved coastal cargo ship, Wincham, says it has had no money to keep the ship since the Friends organisation was closed down in January. The society was faced with a £40,000 repair bill and could not meet the cost of dry-docking facilities. The ship had been on display at Liverpool’s Albert Dock following a £47,500 Lottery grant in 2001.
Bruce Porter, secretary of the Wincham Preservation Society, said: “We have no money and we have had to say goodbye to the vessel. It’s a decision that was not taken lightly and has saddened us all.”
But National Museums Liverpool said that it was unaware of the decision. The NML had been in discussions with the preservation group about finding extra funding to ensure the ships future, until a few weeks ago.
Tony Tibbles, director of Merseyside Maritime Musuem, which is part of NML, said “National Museums Liverpool is disappointed to learn that the Wincham Preservation Society has decided to scrap MV Wincham. National Museums Liverpool was willing to co-operate with others, and explore options for her future preservation. National Museums Liverpool was not consulted or informed about the results of the survey or the repair costs until after this decision was made. Contrary to reports, the scrapping of the Wincham is completely unrelated to any issues around the Friends of National Museums Liverpool.”
Martyn Heighton, chairman of the UK’s Historic Ship Register committee, said,”The scrapping of the historic Mersey estuarial coaster Wincham is an unbelievable state of affairs. Wincham is in the top 300 of the 1,200 ships in the UK National Historic Fleet Register. “
Figures just released for Scotland’s arts and culture sector show that the Lottery squeeze has hit the country hard.
Scotland has already lost £44m of Lottery funding with three of the main lottery distributors the Scottish Arts Council (SAC), Scottish Screen and the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) - having significantly less money to spend.
The Scottish Arts Council will see a cut from £19.2m to just over £12m this year while Scottish Screen will see its lottery cash fall from £2.6m in 2004/5 to just over £2m this year.
The HLF has already been hit by a drop in grant cash available from a high of £62m in 2004/5 to £25m in 2007/8.
Iain Munro, the head of lottery funds for the SAC says that big capital projects are a thing of the past: only up to £250,000 is available for these types of schemes in the future.
Scottish Screen has had to cut a skills development scheme and business development loans for film makers.
Michael Russell, the Scottish Culture Minister, said that the drops in lottery cash were a “huge concern”.
ACE this morning (April 24) announced a £44.5m fast track initiative to help recession-hit artists and art organisations over the next two years. The money will be generated by radically reducing lottery spending over the period.
The main tranch will be an open application fund called Sustain, £40m available to organisations suffering directly because of the recession. There will also be a £4m increase in the lottery-fuelled Grants for the Arts budget, which partly targets individuals, and £500,000 to enable empty retail spaces to be used for artistic activities as part of the government’s Town Centres Initiative.
‘The real challenge for the arts sector is not to ask “what is the government going to do to help us?” but “what can we do to help the country weather and recover from this downturn?”’ said Liz Forgan, ACE chairman. ‘Showing that we can make a real contribution in even the most difficult of times will be the best case we can make for continued public investment in the arts through – and just as importantly – beyond the recession.’
The Arts Council are not passing Budget-inspired cuts on to RFOs. Having prepared for a possible 3% reduction in its DCMS grant worth £14m, the cut to ACE is actually less than 1%, about £4m. ‘We will not reduce our planned investment in the arts organisations we fund on a regular basis - many of whom have already planned against expected income in 2010/11’ said ACE spokeswoman. However, that does notmean there wil be no impact. ‘Instead we will reconsider our existing and planned new projects and look to find savings there’ she said. ‘This is a short term solution but not without its implications as these projects are our investment in the development of the arts.’
Arts Council England is bracing itself for s possible cut in the arts for 2010 following the Budget on April 22.
New ACE chair Dame Liz Forgan said: “We don’t want to confront the arts with bleak scenarios that may never happen, but we have to be prepared. Any cut to the arts will be noticed.
“We are supporting DCMS 100% in their campaign to maintain funding for the arts. ‘Don’t cut the budget’, we are saying, because the last ten years have demonstrated the value of sustained support. I really believe we are in a golden age for the arts in this country.”
The 2010-2011 is the last year in the three year funding cycle and ACE chief executive Alan Davey said any change to the arts spend for the next financial year would depend on any cuts meted out to DCMS in the Budget.
He said they were looking at three possible scenarios of 1.5%, 2% and 3% cuts, with the worst case representing £14m which would have to be handed on to regularly funded organisations (RFOs). But he said there would be no plans until the Budget details had been absorbed, and then there would be full consultation with RFOs.
From Hilary Carty, director of the Cultural Leadership Programme
The CLP Governance Now conference sought to review and set out the key issues that determine and drive the delivery of governance in the cultural and creative industries. The strongly affirmed intent was to provide concrete answers to critical question - the how, what and when of managing our industries with their varied governance models and approaches.
As we watch the governance of our financial institutions crumble around our heads, the talk of “principles” and “values” has become even more important. “Governance is also about Board behaviour” stipulated Baroness Usha Prashar, former first civil service commissioner and former of Arts Council England member, highlighting the need for value-based leadership and a modus operandi that evidences trust, respect and honest communication. “Agreeing the mission is not a one-off exercise” - the board needs to build in time for reflection and strategic thinking, enabling it to step back and maintain the “helicopter view” of the organisation. She also emphasised the board’s responsibility to keep an overview of sustainability of all types: people, talent, resources and networks - so that the wider health of the organisation remained in sight.
The Leadership Axis panel provided two contrasting examples of the key relationship between the chair and chief executive. Charles Mackay (chair) and Michael Day (CEO), Historic Royal Palaces, outlined a formally defined relationship of planned, regular meetings and structured dialogue. Reflecting on their leadership of the highly acclaimed Contact Theatre in Manchester, Wylie Longmore and John McGrath (former chair and CEO respectively) posited a more fluid approach, drawing implicitly on the revised mission of the theatre to ensure that the Board and organisation truly focused its governance and delivery around the youth-based priority articulated in its Mission. But what shone clearly through (despite the starkly different approaches) was how much they had in common: A shared vision, trust, respect, a constructive partnership and “no-surprises”. They built a shared view of the objectives and strategy, then set out distinct priorities for each to follow through - efficient and effective partnerships in action. Prue Skene, governance associate and chair of Rambert Dance, re-emphasised the essential need to get the recruitment and succession planning right, both of the chair and CEO.
The Outside In panel brought an eclectic range of insights from Australia, Europe and the United States. That often admired “Give, Get or Get Off”’ approach that characterises the involvement of the private sector on boards in the US was presenting some significant challenges for cultural organisations for their cultural organisations in the current climate. Russell Willis-Taylor, president & CEO of national strategies and formerly executive director of ENO, cautioned for careful handling of the American model. President Obama’s unprecedented fiscal stimulus is unlikely to reach the arts, and there are already signs that cultural organisations in the States are facing their economic downturn earlier than here.
Governance Now targeted the chairs and CEOs of cultural organisations whose experience and expertise would add to the debate, so the conference included a working lunch with hosted roundtable discussions for sharing, probing and reviewing key topics.
• Who owns the vision, the board or CEO?
• How can the board remain informed and keep an independence of mind?
• Should the chair be a visionary, a facilitator or a leader?
• How do you really overcome conflict at board level?
were questions posed and debated.
Governance Now comes after a range of interventions by the Cultural Leadership Programme to research, explore, stimulate and inform good practice in this key area of challenge for the cultural and creative industries. A publication, is now being developed to capture the key themes of the day and will be available early this summer.
Ken Lewington, charity trustee
Many museums are charities, registered as limited liability companies. Typically, the Memorandum and Articles of Association (M&As) will set the framework for governance and include conditions regarding the admission of members, their rights and privileges. The number of members with which, at incorporation, the company was registered will be specified. The number of members who will hold trustee (i.e. director) status will be set out, as will their powers and duties. The trustees may receive applications for ordinary membership and will use their discretion as to admission to membership. A museum may have some members nominated by the DCMS, conditional on them being elected as trustees.
The Charity Commission recognises the role of ordinary members. Commission document RS7: Membership Charities, gives the characteristics of a member (as distinct from a trustee) as, “An individual with the ability to affect the governance of a charity by voting at the charity’s annual general meeting and who meets all other criteria for a member as set out in the charity’s governing document”. The benefits such members bring are an ability to “influence the decisions a charity makes” and to “help to keep the governing body fresh, accountable and credible”. So, on paper, everything is as it should be. In practice, however, things can be alarmingly different.
In 2006 I applied for membership of one museum and, in 2007, another. Each is a charitable company and receives financial support from the DCMS. Their Articles provide for an unlimited membership. However, the trustees will not admit individual ordinary members. One responded: “At a meeting of the board on the 4 December trustees discussed the policy for admission of new members and agreed that membership of the company should only be extended to trustees” (though Articles invariably stipulate that trusteeship may only be extended to members). The other said: “Whilst the Articles allow for unlimited membership, they also state that the members are the twelve original subscribers and any others they admit. The board has chosen not to admit additional members…”. Operating in this way means that there will be no ordinary members to attend the Annual General Meeting (AGM), to adopt the annual report and accounts, to appoint auditors, to propose another member for the board or to elect or ratify the appointment of trustees.
So if a vacancy on the board occurs the trustees can headhunt a promising candidate and, since the Articles can stipulate that “No person who is not a member of the company shall be entitled to hold office as a trustee”, they will simultaneously grant membership to the selected individual and co-opt him or her into trusteeship. However, with ordinary members provided for but excluded, and so unable to ratify this at the AGM, can such appointments be legitimate?
In April 2007 a Charity Commission case officer wrote to me saying that one of the museums that refused me membership “…does not seem to be a membership charity as such”. Conversely, another then said, “…the charity is a company governed by Memorandum & Articles and provides for membership…” And, “I agree that if the trustees will not allow an ordinary membership this appears to conflict with what is intended in the Memorandum and Articles.” In August 2007, a letter from the museum’s Director said, “In the circumstances, we have no more to say on the matter, and I trust you will understand that neither I nor any other member of the Trust is willing to continue this correspondence, but I wish you well with your enquiries elsewhere.” The Commission concluded its correspondence to me saying, “I hope that you continue with your attempt at becoming a member of this charity, however, the Commission simply has not the resources to pursue this matter any further.”
A policy of exclusion enables boards of charitable companies to act as self-selecting elites; words like “oligarchy” and “closed shop” come to mind. If the Nolan Committee report on standards in public life is concerned to eradicate the “tap on the shoulder” process of recruitment to boards, then the actions and manner of governance of board members of some of our cultural institutions has to change. The starting point must be for the Charity Commission to find the resources, and to compel every museum that is constituted as a charitable company but does not admit ordinary members, to do so forthwith.
Christopher Gordon
It was interesting to read your important interview with Roy Clare (AI 228) which, probably quite fairly, discusses the ‘local’ Board problem. The article reminded me of a conversation I had with Lord Nolan about ten years ago following a lecture he gave at Southampton University. This touched on the ‘national’ problem and still seems relevant today. It was clear from Nolan’s talk that he was extremely disappointed with the actual outcomes of his Report. I asked him privately if he could identify more precisely what he thought were the causes of his proposed reforms not working as intended and for his having come to such a negative conclusion so soon after publication.
He answered me in three words – ‘the civil service’. His Committee’s strong desire had been to open up and liberate ossified systems but, he explained, the fact that the processes for senior appointments were still to a large extent in the hands of civil servants was an almost certain guarantee of continuing failure. The primary concern of your average civil servant, he suggested, was to protect his/her own back and eliminate risk. This meant that at every stage controls, filters and tendencies favouring unadventurous conservatism dominated, while the whole process ratcheted up complexities in a way that was antithetical to his intention. A complete turn off for most of the people the Committee wanted to open up to.
