When I joined the Arts Council as a staff officer nearly a decade ago, 20 people assisted in the management of a budget of a mere £9.4 million. I say mere, because in 1999, that budget stands at £28 million with projected and Government endorsed growth to £37 million by 2001. Since staff numbers in the Arts Council have grown in that time to only 32, it does not take a genius to deduce that there must be a massive strain on human resources within the council, something which has been the subject of recent press coverage by this newspaper.
By comparison, the Arts Council of Northern Ireland has a staff of 40 people to oversee a budget of £14.5 million sterling. The question needs to be asked, therefore: how is the capacity of the Arts Council to discharge its functions affected by Government guidelines which limit necessary staff increases? Apart from the issue of increasing staff numbers, there are other issues which need to be addressed and accepted by the arts community.
Ten years ago, I certainly felt council members, staff and clients were part of a broad peer group. While there were differences of opinions, of course, there was a sense that we were all singing from the same hymn-sheet. The notes on that sheet were composed entirely from a poverty culture, and there was sense of everybody being in it together, against successive recalcitrant governments who were largely ignorant of the needs of the sector.
Two things have changed this old way forever. The massive increase in funding levels, and the shift in the role of the Arts Council from "passive funder" to "development agency". This could be categorised as the move from "cultural friend" to "corporate ally", since you cannot simultaneously remain a best friend while carrying a long cattle prod behind your back.
What is needed is a broad focus on the management of change, one which is sweeping in nature, and includes all constituents: council members, staff and clients of the Council. Change management theories suggest that in the early stages there are usually three camps: the enthusiasts, who are prepared to be pioneers and role models; the floating voters, who have no strong conviction either way; and the opponents, whose reaction is "over my dead body". It seems that the Arts Council as an organisation is currently trying to identify who exactly fits into which camp. But the same management theory suggests that if you are in the early stage of the process of change, all that is needed is damage control. This is defined as the ability of key people to undermine the pioneers. Who exactly are the pioneers and role models, and who are the floating voters and opponents?
In the case of the Arts Council, questions need to be asked, for example, about recent coverage in this paper which included detailed minutes from a private Arts Council meeting, which suggested dissatisfaction with the information flow from management to council members. Radical agendas such as that outlined in the new Arts Plan require a tight ship, and a unified one.
What public interest is being served by airing dirty linen in public about matters which seem to centre not on arts policy, but on the responsibilities of the board of the Arts Council and those of its director. In their defence, the staff of the Arts Council, who are understood to be in discussion with their union SIPTU, remain tight-lipped about their concerns for the successful implementation of the Arts Plan.
The plan itself suggests that training and skill enhancement will be necessary; this and the manner of the creation of new posts is understood to form the core of the staff concerns and was the subject of a meeting held yesterday with SIPTU representatives. Looking at the bigger picture, perhaps it is necessary in this new corporate culture to examine the appropriateness of political appointees to the board, and indeed to examine the role of the chief executive to that board. Corporate stability is a vital component in managing change, individuals need to support the corporate line, irrespective of their own individual agendas.
One could ask whether the appointment of completely new council members every five years provides that stability. Is there room, for example, for a "rolling council" where a percentage of members are retained, in order to ensure the smooth and continuous delivery of policy? On the other hand, people in the arts community need to understand the process of power, and if they will not advocate change in the appointment process, then they need to place themselves at the centre of that power. This means members of the arts community should be looking to engage with political parties, become street-wise to the overall political map - in essence, get their hands dirty. The lobbying which is conducted for appointment to the Arts Council seems to be heavier than for appointment to any other State-appointed board in this country. Despite the fact that Arts Council membership carries no financial recompense, individuals work extremely hard to get on the council and it's a dog-fight to the end.
These appointments are not based solely on merit, but also on a combination of political astuteness, comprehensive networking, and grace and favour. The truth is that people in the arts community do not want to accept this fact. Many believe that if they put in the time, make their contributions to the cultural life of the country, the nice Taoiseach of the day will knock on their door and reward them for their work; this is not always the case.
Constant debate and dialogue are the cornerstones of a healthy cultural life, but ironically this is limited as a direct result of the current Arts Council appointment process. Political patronage, implicit in some political appointments, cripples those we expect to be pioneers of free speech. I learned this myself when I resigned from the Arts Council believing political interference had led to the destruction by the council of Dr Brian Kennedy's book, Dreams and Responsibilities.
If I had a penny for everyone in the arts who told me how great I was to take a stand, I'd be a wealthy woman. But it meant nothing, because few people within the arts community stood up to debate the issue in public, and it was left to the former arts editor of this paper, Paddy Woodworth, to work in a vacuum while attempting to ask the right questions about the validity of the Arts Council destroying its own history.
So what is the answer to the question "what's up at the Arts Council"? Perhaps it is no more than the manifestation of the need for change from the grass roots up, and I mean, all the way to the council members themselves. Perhaps it is about the acceptance of political realities. Ultimately, it will require the management of change in a sensitive manner which combines corporate realities with a public service ethos. If this is so, then the dedicated and hardworking staff of the Arts Council should have a chance to resolve their difficulties to the satisfaction of all concerned. Unity combined with up-front and rigorous debate might help drive the radical agenda, learning from those on the ground.
It is ironic that it is council members themselves who appear to be undermining confidence in the Arts Plan at this critical time. Whatever its flaws, it secured higher investment in the arts than this country has ever seen. If the stated Arts Council structure is to be believed, council members collectively endorsed the document; if they didn't then there is little to be served by complaining after the fact.
