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.
So because of all that going on downstairs with the Bolivarmania, it was almost impossible to get to the lifts to take me to the Lynch party. It was crowded and warm in the eighth floor pavilion as the speeches started, with Lynch’s nervous successor Alan Bishop finding himself having to ’stand on a giant’s shoulders’, and ‘with great humidity’ take over from him. Alan Davey, now head of ACE but back in 2002 doing his first duty as the new DCMS head of culture in interviewing Lynch, said he knew ‘he was the one’ because of the way he’d noticed him walking along the street swinging the cane he has to carry, and even dropping it a couple of times. And then Michael himself relating how he had been warned by the lady he was staying with as he left for the interview that demonstrators were threatening to attack anyone wearing a tie, and having visions of himself, as he crossed Blackfriars Bridge, being found hanging under it by his neckwear as ‘God’s banker’ Roberto Calvi had done. He had words of praise for colleagues, but none more glowing than for Kenelm Robert, the head of customer relations at the RFH, who got an MBE at New Year but whose much greater accolade was to be dubbed ‘a really nice bloke’ by the boss. Not a good bloke was the Standard’s Norman Lebrecht who had been offended by the number of Australians getting top arts jobs here, and called for them to be sent back. ‘I see he’s not here’ said Lynch peering over our heads. ‘That’ll because I didn’t ask him’.
So because of all that going downstairs with the Bolivarmania, it was almost impossible to get to the lifts to take me to the Lynch party. It was crowded and warm in the eighth floor pavilion as the speeches started, with Lynch’s nervous successor Alan Bishop finding himself having to ’stand on a giant’s shoulders’, and ‘with great humidity’ take over from him. Alan Davey, now head of ACE but back in 2002 doing his first duty as the new DCMS head of culture in interviewing Lynch, said he knew ‘he was the one’ because of the way he’d noticed him walking along the street swinging the cane he has to carry, and even dropping it a couple of times. And then Michael himself relating how he had been warned by the lady he was staying with as he left for the interview that demonstrators were threatening to attack anyone wearing a tie, and having visions of himself, as he crossed Blackfriars Bridge, being found hanging under it by his neckwear as ‘God’s banker’ Roberto Calvi had done. He had words of praise for colleagues, but none more glowing than for Kenelm Robert, the head of customer relations at the RFH, who got an MBE at New Year but whose much greater accolade was to be dubbed ‘a really nice bloke’ by the boss. Not a good bloke was the Standard’s Norman Lebrecht who had been offended by the number of Australians getting top arts jobs here, and called for them to be sent back. ‘I see he’s not here’ said Lynch peering over our heads. ‘That’ll because I didn’t ask him’.
And his words follow him. His interview for AI last time has been picked up by all the national press, the BBC and even the Australian media. For his trials in achieving the impossible and getting the RFH done? For his tribulations dealing with English Heritage who wouldn’t have the lift he insisted on, or for coping with the asbestos, or for the sudden £18m hike in the bill? For his lessons in governance? Of course not, it was for calling bankers ‘a bunch of bastards’ for not contributing to the RFH development fund. And he reports back that as he got on the plane on Thursday he was cheered by the cabin staff, most of them ex-bank employees.
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.
Culture Secretary Andy Burnham has stepped into a row about library closures in the Wirral. Wirral Council is proposing to close 11 of its 24 libraries over the next three months, under its Strategic Asset Review. Museums Libraries and Archives council CEO Roy Clare has accused the authority of betraying a “lack of vision”.
But the secretary of state has gone further, setting up a local inquiry – the first of its kind since 1991 - to test the council’s plans for consistency and compliance with their statutory duty to provide all residents with a comprehensive public library service.
“Public libraries play a central role at the heart of our communities, providing a rich source of information, wisdom and learning” Burnham said. “This is all the more true in difficult economic times. They should never be an optional extra for local authorities. I have a statutory responsibility to ensure everyone has access to a comprehensive and efficient service because ready access to high quality libraries for all is absolutely central to a truly public service.
“There is a significant gap in the available evidence on the likely impact that the Wirral’s plans to close 11 branches will have on the community. Ensuring our public library service is fit for the 21st century can sometimes means difficult decisions and I certainly would not stand in the way of any council who wants to modernise; this is at the heart of the review that my department will publish in June.”
AI PROFILE: Michael Lynch CBE, CEO Southbank Centre
When Michael Lynch arrived at the South Bank Centre at 8.30 one bright summer morning in 2002 to start work, the place was locked. He had to call security to let him in.
“Then I sat in my new office and by 12 no-one had darkened my door, so I just walked the building going into people”. In one office he announced himself as the new chief executive, “and someone said ‘blimey, we haven’t seen one of those for 14 years!’ I thought it was an English thing that everyone expected to be summoned rather than turn up.”
He found a largely inert organisation whose 350 staff had been there an average of 15 years and was not equipped for the huge task the board had set him. In five years he was to have transformed the organisation, brought the Festival Hall from the 1950s into the 21st century and created the world class concert hall it had hitherto notoriously failed to be.
There had been a series of development plans by previous administrations all of which had come to nought – “it killed so many careers” - and he found that the jewel of the centre, the Festival Hall auditorium, was barely in existing plans at all. But the building was near to being closed: if the boilers which had seized up that summer had done so in the winter or if the asbestos had been found then instead of in 2006 during the refurbishment, it would have been.
“One of the architects said to me, ‘you haven’t been a very good client’, and that was a galvanising moment for me: the architects and acousticians had been working on it for eight and nine years, but we hadn’t developed enough sense of what the project was going to be, and we were being guided by all sorts of other players (on his first day he was handed a list 58 stakeholders, from the Arts Council to the South Bank Users Association) rather than the initiative being shown from here.
“If I’d been appointed for five years I needed to get on my bike and make sure I had a group of people around me that could find a way to raise the money. My task would finish on the 21st August 2007. It was pretty tough.”
Michael Lynch had had a varied career when he arrived. A politics gradate of Sydney University, he worked for the Australia Council of Arts before going into theatre management, being the casting director for the Crocodile Dundee Films, becoming director of the Australia Council and then in 1998 chief executive of Sydney Opera House, turning around that ailing organisation in time for the Sydney Olympics for which it was to be the cultural nub.
Here, he gradually changed the executive structure at Southbank, bringing in an operating officer “to do the things I’m not so good at”, and later an artistic director. “The chairman, Clive Hollick, had only been appointed for three years (Hollick’s tenure was later extended to 2008), it was a monumental task and we had to get it moving” he says.
“We went through a complete change, and in some cases a number of changes over the six and a half years. Then we had to go through significant convulsive changes in a whole lot of other areas, particularly in 2005 when we made 181 people redundant for closure, and then again as we prepared to reopen in 2007 to get the organisation in shape for what it was then going to be post reopening.”
When he arrived the scheme was valued at £54m, and as he leaves it has doubled to £118m, thanks to rising costs but also to greater ambition which involved creating money-making outlets on the riverside, and a new administrative building by Hungerford Bridge to free public space in the hall. It had been his decision not to skimp o0n the acoustic and spend an extra £20m on it.
ALSO
Bradford’s film past an future - with global ambitions
School’s Mary Rose coup - Whitgift gives first glimpse of treasures of Henry VIII’s flagship
Whitechapel’s haunting presence - inspiring reformation for East End gallery
MLA backs adult learners
The Museums Libraries and Archives Council (MLA) is launching a £100,000 grants fund to encourage museums and libraries to open up their facilities to adult learners.
Grants of up to £5,000 will be given to organisations which make available meeting rooms or collections to self-organised groups of learners. The MLA will also establish a new Adult Learners Board, co-chaired by MLA chief executive Roy Clare, to oversee the development of a framework for informal adult learning by March 2010.
The moves are part of the MLA’s contribution to the Government’s White Paper on informal adult learning which takes place outside formal courses in colleges and other education institutions. Secretary of State at the Department of Innovation, Universities and Skills, John Denham, said: “Museums, libraries and archives have inspired and supported generations of learners. Open to everybody they play a vital role in widening access to lifelong learning opportunities in every community.”
Tale of two cities
Liverpool and Manchester are going head to head with hefty investments in arts programmes this year.
Manchester has unveiled the line up for the second edition of the Manchester International festival this summer - the only international event devoted to new work.
And Liverpool has announced a massive public art trail as one of the highlights of a major programme of free cultural events. Also included is a waterfront festival over three weekends in the summer featuring art, film and music, and
celebrating Liverpool’s links with New York. The council is also planning major new artistic commissions, worth up to £25,000 each, for some of Liverpool’s existing annual free festivals. The City Council has committed £8.4m to its arts budget, which will help fund 67 organisations, including the Royal Liverpool Philharmonic Orchestra and the Liverpool Everyman & Playhouse.
Manchester’s festival will feature new works by Carlos Acosta, Marina Abramovich, Kraftwerk and the first UK joint performance by Laurie Anderson and Lou Reed. The Royal Exchange Theatre will be transformed into a working bingo hall for a new show Everybody Loves A Winner, created by Neil Bartlett, Simon Deacon and Struan Leslie. The festival will also see an unusual collaboration between architect Zaha Hadid and the music of JS Bach.
