MEASURING THE EXPERIENCE #25
In Care, Diligence and Skill: a handbook for the governing bodies of arts organisations[1] the general criteria for assessing suitability of proposed board members are described as:
• Quality: regardless of age, profession and other characteristics, each board member should have integrity, intelligence and a successful record of achievements so as to command the respect of fellow board members, the staff and also the outside world.
• Ability to co-operate: each board member must be able to work as part of a team. A brilliant person can make a negative contribution to a board if s/he is unable to work easily with other people. Members must be able to discuss issues vigorously but harmoniously and move quickly towards a group consensus.
• Genuine interest: a person should have a genuine interest in the organisation’s activities and its art form.
• Discretion: Members should have a proper respect for confidentiality
• Time available: a potential board member must be willing to devote enough time to attend to the organisation’s business
• Absence of conflicts: people should not serve on a board if they have or are publicly seen to have interests that conflict with those of the organisation itself.
• Willingness to retire: the needs of an organisation change over time and the right mix of skills today may by unsuitable tomorrow. Members must be willing to retire when their skills are no longer relevant.
Although artists may be able to fulfil some of these requirements, at issue here is whether they are perceived as being able “to command the respect of… the outside world”. Also at issue is whether artists who are board members can undertake paid work for the organisation, (for example undertaking residencies, commissions, etc or even renting studio space) or whether this is regarded as a pecunary benefit.
The booklet goes on to describes the “mix of professional skills” needed by the board of an arts organisation. To be successful, it needs to have one or more members with professional knowledge of the relevant art form, a person with a knowledge of finance, banking, accounts and law and a business executive. It is also said to be important to have people with marketing skills, good contacts and proven fundraising skills.
By default then, it would appear that whilst artists are perceived as being well qualified to deal with the ‘ideas stage’, other sorts of people are felt to be more capable of leading, directing and managing the organisation which has been created out of the artists’ ideas and energies. Notwithstanding the constraints dictated by the Charity Commission as regards remuneration of trustees, questions arise as to the motives funding bodies may have in this respect. Do they anticipate that artists, because they are first and foremost practitioners, are too single-minded and self-interested to perform this broader function? Are they deemed to be financially or managerially naïve or irresponsible? Is it that they are insufficiently experienced in the ways of the world as regards influencing supporters and raising the necessary funds? Is it too difficult for funding bodies to deal with artists who may not necessarily share their values or ‘speak the same language’ they do? Alternatively, is giving the direction and leadership to a group of people with different backgrounds felt simply to be the most expedient way to get an organisation ‘up to speed’ within a time-frame which the funding bodies feel is appropriate, whilst at the same time ensuring there will be no problems about meeting the requirements of public accountability?
[1]Care, Diligence and Skill, a handbook for the governing bodies of arts organisations, Scottish Arts Council, 1987
